JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


[AIN 


WI  TH  RE  PROD  C ' 
KNOWN  PAIN1 
THE  won: 


T3J3CI  30  H33M337  VIAL 

HO  ,OOl  33TAW  A HTIW  UAMOW  OKUOY  A 
TVT3M38A0  A 0V1IV1330  VIA  MOW  OVIUOY  A 

aaoY  w3 V:  ,mA  io  MuaeuM  v*atuo<k>*thM 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


A YOUNG  WOMAN  WITH  A WATER  JUG,  OR 
A YOUNG  WOMAN  OPENING  A CASEMENT 


Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


BY 

PHILIP  L.  HALE 


WITH  REPRODUCTIONS  OF  ALL  OF  VERMEER’S 
KNOWN  PAINTINGS  AND  EXAMPLES  OF 
THE  WORK  OF  CERTAIN  OF  HIS 
CONTEMPORARIES 


BOSTON 

SMALL,  MAYNARD  AND  COMPANY 


PUBLISHERS 


Copyright,  1913 

By  Small,  Maynard  and  Company 
(incorporated) 


THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,  CAMBRIDGE,  U.  S.  A. 


PREFACE 


THIS  book  is  written  to  make  the  name  and  the 
work  of  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  better  known 
to  Americans.  Although  he  is  now  well  known 
to  artists  and  connoisseurs  he  still  remains  quite 
unheeded  by  very  many  intelligent  and  cultivated 
people.  It  is  to  overcome,  if  possible,  this  neglect, 
to  bring  the  man  and  his  work  home  to  people,  and 
to  tell  so  far  as  may  be  the  curious  story  of  this 
artist’s  disappearance  and  of  his  later  reappear- 
ance that  the  following  pages  are  written. 

Since  there  is  but  little  to  tell  of  Vermeer’s  life 
a good  deal  of  this  book  is  given  to  a study  of  his 
artistic  qualities  and  so  far  as  may  be  of  his  tech- 
nical processes. 

His  particular  qualities  — his  design,  his  study 
of  edges,  his  intuition  for  colour  values,  his  pecu- 
liar and  very  personal  system  of  colour  arrange- 
ment — are  very  characteristic  and  have  not 
perhaps  been  overmuch  dwelt  on  by  previous 
writers. 

Anyone  who  writes  of  the  life  and  times  of 
Vermeer  is  of  necessity  under  great  obligation  to 


vi  PREFACE 

half  a dozen  or  more  men  whose  researches  have 
cleared  up  much  of  the  mystery  concerning  him. 

The  investigations  of  Biirger-Thore,  of  Ha- 
vard  and  of  Obreen;  and  the  later  discoveries 
and  corrections  of  Dr.  Bredius,  Dr.  Martin  and 
Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot  are  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance. Due  acknowledgment  is  hereby  made 
to  all  of  these  gentlemen  for  the  assistance 
which  they,  quite  unconsciously,  have  afforded 
the  writer  of  this  book.  Grateful  acknowledg- 
ment is  also  made  for  the  kind  assistance  and 
advice  given  for  certain  details  by  Dr.  VV.  R. 
Valentiner  and  by  Dr.  Philip  Gentner. 


P.  L.  H. 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  Pace 

I The  Art  of  Jan  Vermeer 3 

II  Holland  in  Vermeer’s  Day 35 

III  Vermeer  and  His  Times 53 

IV  Characteristics  of  Vermeer’s  Technique  99 

V Values  in  Vermeer’s  Painting  . . . 143 

VI  Composition  and  Design 161 

VII  Old  Masters 193 

VIII  Vermeer  and  Modern  Painting  . . . 215 

IX  Vermeer’s  Pictures 237 

Bibliography 377 

Index 385 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


A Young  Woman  with  a Water  Jug,  or  a Young 
Woman  Opening  a Casement.  Jan  Vermeer  of 

Delft Frontispiece 

Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York 

Facing  page 


A Lady  Reading  a Letter,  and  a Maid-servant. 

Gabriel  Metzu.  (Attributed  by  Lord  Ronald  Gower  to  Jan 

V ermeer  of  Delft ) 8 

Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London 

The  Soldier  and  the  Laughing  Girl.  Jan  Vermeer 

of  Delft 1 6 

Collection  of  Henry  C.  Frick,  New  York 

The  Lace  Maker.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 24 

Museum  of  the  Louvre,  Paris 

Woman  Weighing  Pearls  or  Gold.  Jan  Vermeer  of 

Delft 30 

Collection  of  P.  A.  B.  Widener,  Philadelphia 

Dutch  Room.  Artist  unknown.  ( Wrongly  attributed  to 

Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft;  possibly  by  Pieter  de  Hooch)  . . 40 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 

A Street  in  Delft.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 54 

Collection  of  J.  Six,  Amsterdam 

A View  of  Delft  from  the  Rotterdam  Canal.  Jan 

Vermeer  of  Delft 58 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 

The  Lesson.  Artist  unknown.  (Formerly  attributed  to 

Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft;  probably  by  Michiel  Sweerts)  . 66 

National  Gallery,  London 

The  Goldfinch.  Karel  Fabritius 72 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 


X 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Facing  page 

Portrait  of  a Woman.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  ....  82 

Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Buda-Pesth 

Interior,  with  Woman  and  Boy.  Pieter  de  Hooch  . 88 

Wallace  Collection,  London 

Portrait  of  a Young  Man.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  ( Au- 
thenticity not  established) 92 

Museum  of  Brussels 

The  Procuress,  or  The  Courtesan.  Jan  Vermeer  of 

Delft 100 

The  Picture  Gallery,  Dresden 

Christ  in  the  House  of  Mary  and  Martha.  Jan 

Vermeer  of  Delft 1 1 2 

Collection  of  W.  A.  Coats,  Skelmorlie  Castle,  Scotland 

Lady  with  a Lute.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 124 

Collection  of  Mrs.  Henry  E.  Huntingdon,  New  York 

Diana  at  Her  Toilet.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  {Authen- 
ticity not  fully  established)  132 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 

The  Girl  with  the  Wine  Glass.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  136 
Picture  Gallery,  Brunswick 

A Girl  at  the  Spinet.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 144 

Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London 

The  Love  Letter.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 156 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 

The  Concert.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 162 

Collection  of  Mrs.  John  L.  Gardner,  Boston 

The  Sick  Child.  Gabriel  Metzu 168 

In  the  possession  of  F.  Kleinberger,  Paris 

A Girl  Asleep.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  174 

Collection  of  the  late  B.  Altman 

The  Love  Letter.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 182 

Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London 

A Maid-servant  Pouring  Out  Milk,  or  The  Milk- 

Woman.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 188 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


xi 


Facing  page 

The  Concert.  Gerard  Terburg 196 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 

Allegory  of  the  New  Testament.  Jan  Vermeer  of 

Delft . 204 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague;  lent  by  Dr.  A.  Bredius 

A Lady  and  a Maid-servant.  J an  Vermeer  of  Delft  . . . 210 

Collection  of  James  Simon,  Berlin 

A Young  Lady  with  a Pearl  Necklace.  Jan  Vermeer 

of  Delft 220 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 

The  Sleeping  Servant.  Artist  unknown.  ( Formerly 

attributed  to  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  by  Bur  ger-Thore)  . . 228 

Collection  of  P.  A.  B.  Widener,  Philadelphia 

Portrait  of  a Young  Girl.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  . . . 232 

Arenberg  Gallery,  Brussels 

Lady  Writing.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 240 

Collection  of  J.  Pierpont  Morgan;  lent  to  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  of  Art,  New  York 

A Gentleman  and  a Young  Lady,  sometimes  called 

The  Music  Lesson.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  ....  252 

Collection  of  Henry  C.  Frick,  New  York 

A Young  Girl  with  a Flute.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  . 264 

In  the  possession  of  M.  Knoedler  and  Company,  New  York, 

London  and  Paris 

A Lady  Playing  the  Guitar.  J an  Vermeer  of  Delft  . 268 

Collection  of  John  G.  Johnson,  Philadelphia 

A Young  Lady  at  the  Virginals.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  272 

National  Gallery,  London 

Lady  at  the  Virginals  and  a Gentleman.  Jan  Ver- 
meer of  Delft 278 

Royal  Collection,  Windsor  Castle 

A Girl  Reading  a Letter.  J an  Vermeer  of  Delft  . . . 284 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 

Portrait  of  a Young  Girl.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  . . 296 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


xii 

Facing  page 

A Girl  Drinking  with  a Gentleman.  Jan  Vermeer  of 

Delft 310 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 

Study  of  a Head.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  ( Authenticity 

contested) 316 

Royal  Print  Collection,  Berlin 

A Girl  Reading  a Letter.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  . . . 324 

Picture  Gallery,  Dresden 

The  Astronomer.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 328 

Stadel’sches  Kunstinstitut,  Frankfort-on-Main 

The  Astronomer.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  ( Authenticity 

contested) 334 

Collection  of  the  Vicomte  du  Bus  de  Gisignies,  Brussels 

Artist  at  Work,  or  The  Studio.  J an  Vermeer  of  Delft  . 344 

Collection  of  Count  Czernin  von  Chudenitz,  Vienna 

A Young  Lady  Seated  at  the  Spinet.  Jan  Vermeer  of 

Delft 354 

National  Gallery,  London 

Family  in  the  Courtyard  of  a House.  Pieter  de 

Hooch 364 

Academie  der  Bildenden  Kiinste,  Vienna 

The  Astronomer.  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 372 

Collection  of  the  late  Baron  Alphonse  de  Rothschild,  Paris 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

WE  find  the  best  men  by  a process  of  elimi- 
nation. At  the  outset  it  may  seem 
strange  to  call  Vermeer  the  greatest  painter  who 
has  ever  lived.  Yet  if  one  looks  at  painting  from 
the  realistic  standpoint  one  of  necessity  arrives  at 
something  like  this  idea.  One  may  readily  con- 
ceive that  Titian  and  Giorgione  were  more  se- 
ductive artistic  personalities;  that  Da  Vinci  was 
more  subtle,  Raphael  a greater  draughtsman. 
But  when  it  comes  to  sheer  downright  painting 
it  would  seem  that  Vermeer  was  in  most  respects 
the  leader  of  all.  Indeed,  it  might  almost  be 
said  that  from  our  ultra-modern  point  of  view, 
till  Vermeer  painted  no  one  had  tried  to  paint  at 
all.  Of  course  there  were  giants  like  Velasquez, 
Rubens  and  Rembrandt  who  did  very  wonderful 
things.  But  none  of  these  conceived  of  arriving 

3 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

at  tone  by  an  exquisitely  just  relation  of  colour 
values,  and  it  is  this  idea  that  lies  at  the  root  of 
all  really  good  modern  painting. 

It  is  true  that  Vermeer  himself  seems  to  have 
tried  to  come  at  a certain  tonality  by  underpaint- 
ing in  blue.  Still,  compared  to  any  other  old 
master,  his  sense  of  colour  values,  the  relations  of 
various  tints  and  hues  one  with  another,  seems  to 
have  been  exquisitely  acute.  This  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  studied  the  “edges”  of  objects 
— a subject  which  is  discussed  in  another  chap- 
ter — are  the  two  chief  qualities  which  lead  to 
his  preeminence  as  a painter.  They  may  not 
seem  to  the  lay  mind  very  important  qualities. 
But  it  is  not  claimed  that  Vermeer  is  an  impor- 
tant painter  from  the  layman’s  point  of  view. 
Rather  it  is  asserted  that  to  other  painters  Ver- 
meer seems  very  great,  perhaps  the  greatest 
painter  per  se  who  has  lived. 

One  thinks,  of  course,  of  Velasquez  in  this  con- 
nection, and  no  one  would  deny  that  Velasquez 
was  a painter  of  stupendous  ability.  But  viewed 
from  the  modern  standpoint,  and  that,  it  is  ob- 
vious, is  the  only' point  on  which  we  can  stand, 
Velasquez  had  not  so  unerring  a sense  of  values, 
or  of  colour  relations,  as  had  Vermeer.  For  in- 

4 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

stance,  in  the  Forge  of  Vulcan  he  makes  the 
white-hot  metal  about  the  same  value  as  the  flesh, 
and  makes  no  cross  lights  on  the  flesh  from  this 
incandescent  mass.  While  his  colour  is  gravely 
beautiful  and  in  many  ways  truer  than  the  work 
that  had  been  done  up  to  his  time,  it  is  not  al- 
ways absolutely  just.  In  a head  like  the  Philip 
IV  in  London,  it  is  true,  he  arrives  at  astonish- 
ingly delicate  colour  relations  in  the  face.  But 
in  other  pictures  he  seems  to  have  bound  them 
together  by  a sort  of  black  broth,  which  achieves, 
indeed,  a kind  of  ensemble , but  not  the  exquisite 
ensemble  that  obtains  in  nature.  In  short,  Velas- 
quez, a very  great  man,  and  one  of  the  greatest 
of  painters,  was  not  particularly  strong  in  just 
this  respect. 

One  of  the  things  which  particularly  interest  us 
in  Vermeer  is  his  modernity.  Certain  pictures  of 
his,  notably  the  Studio  Interior  of  Vienna,  look, 
as  the  saying  is,  as  if  they  had  been  painted  yes- 
terday. And  it  is  not  only  that  the  colour  looks 
freshly  laid  on,  but  that  it  has  been  seen  and 
understood  as  we  moderns  see  and  understand 
colour. 

A certain  brilliant  artist  has  very  acutely 
pointed  out,  that  nowadays  we  are  apt  to  admire 

5 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

contemporaries  because  their  work  suggests  vari- 
ous old  masters;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
admire  most,  as  painters,  those  old  masters  whose 
work  most  resembles  modern  painting. 

Certainly  various  qualities  in  Vermeer’s  work 
are  singularly  modern;  his  point  of  view,  his  de- 
sign, his  colour  values,  his  edges,  his  way  of  using 
the  square  touch,  his  occasionally  pointille  touch, 
— all  these  are  peculiarly  modern  qualities  which 
one  seldom  notices  in  other  old  masters.  Perhaps 
then,  we  particularly  admire  Vermeer  because  he 
has  attacked  what  seem  to  us  distinctly  modern 
problems  or  motifs  and  solved  them,  on  the  whole, 
in  a modern  way.  And  with  this  he  has  been 
able  to  retain  something  of  the  serenity,  poise 
and  finish  that  we  regard  as  peculiarly  the  prop- 
erty of  the  old  masters.  Our  modern  work  is 
petulant,  that  of  the  masters  was  serene. 

It  is  true  that  Vermeer  was  not  always  wholly 
successful.  Nobody  ever  has  been,  and  doubtless 
no  one  ever  will  be.  It  is  silly  to  ascribe  to  one’s 
hero  all  the  virtues;  it  is  enough  to  point  out  the 
qualities  which  he  possesses. 

Vermeer’s  work  is  often  pale,  greyish  — at  times 
almost  a monotone.  These  very  defects  are  ac- 
counted virtues  by  some  of  his  more  passion- 

6 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

ate  admirers;  but  it  seems  probable  that  they  all 
come  from  his  habit  of  underpainting  in  blue  and 
occasionally  using  yellow  and  pink  lake  glazes. 
In  some  instances  the  glazes  have  died  out  and 
the  underpainting  has  come  through,  hence  the 
famous  grey  tone.  What  makes  one  feel  that  this 
is  so  is  that  certain  of  his  pictures  have  held 
true.  The  Procuress , made  at  the  beginning  of  his 
career,  and  the  Studio , apparently  done  toward 
the  last,  both  look,  in  all  probability,  much  as 
when  they  were  first  painted. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  Vermeer’s  still-life  is 
sometimes  better  than  his  heads  and  hands.  It 
is  hard  to  believe  that  anything  could  be  better 
painted  than  are  some  of  his  map-rollers  and  the 
lions’  heads  on  his  chairs.  On  the  other  hand  it 
is  quite  easy  to  understand  that  heads  and  hands 
might  very  well  be  better  drawn  and  modelled 
than  are  some  of  his  heads  and  hands.  Still, 
taking  him  by  and  large,  it  would  seem  that 
Vermeer  has  more  great  painting  qualities  and 
fewer  defects  than  has  any  other  painter  we  know 
about. 

It  is  when  one  compares  him  with  other  very 
great  painters  of  his  own  sort  that  his  superiority 
is  most  manifest.  Compared  to  him  Terburg  ap- 

7 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

pears  sleazy  and  mannered;  De  Hooch  looks  hot 
and  stodgy;  even  Metsu,  perhaps  the  most  ac- 
complished technician  of  them  all,  seems  rather 
artificial  and  by  no  means  so  alert  to  colour 
values.  This  is  not  to  say  that  these  men  were 
not  very  great.  Each  one  had  extraordinary 
qualities.  But  Vermeer  combines  in  himself  most 
of  these  good  qualities  and  avoids  many  of  their 
defects. 

One  hears  nowadays  a good  deal  of  talk  about 
“ the  innocent  eye.”  The  phrase  was  perhaps 
invented  by  the  impressionists,  whose  great  effort 
was  to  render  the  thing  just  as  it  appeared. 
They,  too,  felt  the  effect  which  old  ideas  or 
knowledge  had  in  vision.  So  they  invented  the 
phrase  “innocent  eye”  to  describe  an  eye  un- 
vitiated by  previous  impressions. 

If  one  had  always  been  blind  and  by  some  for- 
tunate surgical  operation  were  enabled  to  see, 
one  would  possess  the  innocent  eye;  that  is,  one 
would  see  things  exactly  as  they  appeared  with- 
out any  understanding  of  them  or  any  prejudice 
about  the  matter.  If  it  be  a good  thing  to  pos- 
sess this  sort  of  vision,  then  Vermeer  was  most 
happy.  For  he  seems  to  have  seen  things  in  this 
manner.  If  he  painted  a hand,  he  would  make 

8 


zu.  ( Attributed  by  Lord  Ronald  Gower  to  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft) 

A LADY  READING  A LETTER,  AND  A 
MAID-SERVANT 


Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Heit,  London 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

it  by  the  appearance  of  light  and  shade,  not  by 
painting  in  the  direction  of  the  forms.  Even 
where  he  indicated  things  by  brushing  in  the 
planes  in  the  direction  of  the  forms  he  apparently 
modified  this  by  working  over  the  edges  and  car- 
rying the  light  across  the  form. 

What,  then,  is  really  the  basic  quality  of  Ver- 
meer’s art,  the  thing  that  makes  it  most  itself 
and  most  different  from  the  work  of  other  men, 
is  his  manner  of  seeing.  Where  other  men  had  a 
genius  for  drawing  or  for  colour,  he  had  a genius 
for  vision.  After  studying  his  work  most  care- 
fully, one  arrives  at  a feeling  that  what  gave 
his  work  its  peculiar  quality  was  that  he  looked 
at  things  harder  than  do  other  men.  Other  men’s 
work  comes  wrong  because  they  have  not  ob- 
served the  thing  before  them  carefully  enough  to 
understand  its  making.  Often,  too,  they  have  ac- 
quired a manner  of  making  things,  a parti-pris, 
which  impels  them  to  distort  nature  to  suit  their 
book.  Vermeer  also  had  his  manner  of  making 
things,  but  after  he  had  laid  the  picture  in,  and 
indeed  carried  it  quite  far,  he  seems  to  have  sat 
back  and  looked  at  nature  again  and  again  to  see 
if  there  was  anything  he  could  do  to  his  picture 
to  make  it  more  “like.”  Naturally,  at  that  stage 

9 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

of  its  making  there  always  was  something  he 
could  do,  and  he  was  always  willing,  at  no  matter 
what  sacrifice  of  apparently  skilful  technique,  to 
do  everything  he  could  to  obtain  absolutely  the 
real  aspect  of  nature  — la  vraie  verite,  as  Courbet 
liked  to  call  it. 

In  studying  Vermeer’s  works  one  gets  to  feel 
that  while  his  technique  is  almost  always  ade- 
quate they  do  not  succeed  merely  through  tech- 
nique or  on  account  of  it.  Though  he  was  a very 
skilful  workman,  one  perceives  that  Metzu  was 
more  skilful  — and  indeed  it  must  be  said  that 
as  a workman,  in  modern  days  the  unfortunate 
Bargue  was  more  skilful  than  either  of  them.  But 
one  feels  that  Vermeer  looked  so  hard  at  the 
thing  before  him,  he  studied  it  so  carefully,  he 
came  to  understand  it  so  well,  that  strength  was 
given  him  to  render  it.  His  almost  perfect  ren- 
dering is  the  result  of  perfect  understanding. 
When  one  studies  some  of  his  more  successful 
masterpieces,  one  almost  feels  that  no  one  else  has 
ever  really  looked  at  nature  at  all.  One  wonders 
what  these  other  painters  were  doing.  One  per- 
ceives that  they  spent  most  of  their  time  making 
their  pictures,  not  enough  time  in  looking  at  and 
appraising  the  scene  before  them;  they  seem  to 


io 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

have  thought  more  of  how  they  were  doing  it 
than  of  how  it  looked. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  Vermeer,  too,  thought 
a great  deal  of  how  he  was  doing  it.  It  is  im- 
possible to  imagine  a great  painter  doing  other- 
wise. Only,  it  would  seem  that  Vermeer  thought 
how  he  would  best  render  the  thing  he  saw,  where 
other  men  thought  how  to  make  the  thing  they 
saw  conform  to  their  manner  of  rendering. 

The  difference  in  the  matter  of  vision  between 
the  simple-minded  layman  and  the  artist  is  that 
the  first,  in  looking  at  nature,  tries  to  perceive 
what  it  may  be,  while  the  second  tries  to  see  how 
it  looks.  These  may  seem  to  be  the  same  thing, 
but  they  are  not  quite  the  same.  For  instance,  a 
layman  in  looking  at  a white  column  in  shadow 
against  a far-off  greenish-blue  mountain  would  say 
that  the  column  was  lighter  than  the  mountain- 
He  knows  that  the  column  is  white,  that  the 
mountain  is  covered  with  dark  trees;  therefore  it 
seems  to  him  that  the  mountain  must  be  the 
darker  of  the  two.  But  the  artist  perceives  that, 
in  reality,  the  column  appears  darker  than  the 
mountain.  Artists,  then,  are  trained  to  paint 
things  as  they  appear;  but  this  is  more  difficult 
than  it  may  seem.  Artists,  despite  their  training, 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

are  constantly  putting  in  things  because  they 
know  they  are  there,  or  leaving  things  out  because 
they  have  no  particular  understanding  of  them. 

But  Vermeer  seems,  more  than  other  men,  to 
have  been  able  to  see  quite  justly  the  thing  as  it 
appeared  without  prejudice  or  preconception,  and, 
having  rightly  seen,  to  have  been  able  to  plan 
ways  and  means  of  justly  rendering  his  vision. 

One  feels,  first  of  all,  in  Vermeer’s  work  that 
he  was  a truth-teller.  It  is  rather  fashionable 
nowadays  to  intimate  that  the  truth,  la  vraie 
verite , cannot  be  told  in  painting  and  therefore 
should  be  left  severely  alone.  It  is  perfectly  true 
that  one  cannot  obtain  absolute  truth  in  paint 
any  more  than  one  can  in  words.  But  just  as 
this  does  not  absolve  us  from  trying  to  tell  the 
truth  in  words,  so  there  is  no  particular  reason 
why  the  painter  should  not  at  least  try  to  obtain 
the  truth  in  paint. 

Vermeer’s  work  does  not  indeed  give  the  whole 
truth  — it  will  be  forever  impossible  that  a can- 
vas in  two  dimensions  can  gfve  the  whole  truth 
about  a world  in  three  dimensions.  But  his  work 
suggests  the  truth  more  completely  than  the  work 
of  anyone  else  one  calls  to  mind  at  the  present 


12 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

moment.  Vermeer,  it  would  seem,  tried  purely 
to  give  the  exact  aspect  of  the  thing  opposite 
him.  This  perhaps  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  his 
work  is  so  sympathetic  to  many  modern  painters. 

For  Vermeer,  almost  alone  among  the  old  paint- 
ers, faced  resolutely  many  of  the  same  problems 
that  modern  painters  have  set  for  themselves.  He 
had  at  least  a strong  intuition  for  colour  values. 
He  showed  in  his  pointilliste  tones  a sense  of  the 
intangible  play  of  light.  His  tones,  whether 
square-touch  or  pointille , expressed  the  modern  idea 
of  “painting  by  the  spot.”  What  painting  by 
the  spot  means  is  that  if  one  painted  a leopard 
one  would  first  render  the  spots  rather  than  the 
modelling. 

Vermeer  seems  to  have  had  the  thought,  uttered 
or  unexpressed,  that  if  he  only  could  make  his 
picture  just  like  what  was  before  him  it  would 
include  all  the  valid  technical  merits  of  other 
painters.  If  one  comes  to  think  of  it,  when  we 
admire  a particular  quality  in  a man’s  work,  if  it 
is  at  all  worth  admiring  it  is  because  it  suggests 
some  particular  phase  of  nature. 

We  admire  Da  Vinci  for  his  light  and  shade, 
Titian  for  his  colour,  Velasquez  for  his  “tone,” 
Ingres  for  his  drawing.  In  so  far  as  these  qualities 

i3 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


are  worth  admiring  in  these  men  it  is  because  they 
brought  out  the  truth,  la  vraie  verite  — the  very 
closest,  subtlest,  most  suggestive  truth  that  that 
particular  phase  of  nature  had  to  show.  It  is  not 
because  they  lie  about  it  that  we  admire  them, 
but  because  they  tell  the  truth  more  acutely, 
with  passion,  with  desire  that  we  shall  know  its 
last  refinement.  Lovers  are  supposed  to  see  in 
each  other  qualities  that  no  one  else  can  see,  but 
we  all  know  that  it  is  really  because  they  see  more 
clearly,  more  deeply,  with  more  sympathy  than 
others,  and  detect  qualities  that  are  really  there 
— not  to  be  seen  by  the  common  herd.  And  so 
the  artist-lover  does  not  see  wrong  in  searching 
for  his  appointed  quality;  he  simply  sees  better 
than  the  others. 

Then,  if  a man  could  render  Nature  absolutely 
as  she  appears,  all  these  exquisite  qualities  would 
be  added  unto  one.  So  Vermeer  seemed  to  think, 
and  although  writers  and  critics  have,  time  and 
again,  warned  us  that  this  is  not  the  right  way 
to  proceed  — that  one  cannot  have  all  the  quali- 
ties— Vermeer  seems  to  have  gone  a long  way 
toward  gaining  them.  The  trouble  with  trying 
merely  for  light  and  shade,  merely  for  colour, 
merely  for  drawing,  is  not  only  that  we  miss  all 

14 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

the  other  qualities,  but  even  that  which  we  try 
for  we  distort. 

“From  him  who  hath  not,  shall  be  taken  away 
even  that  which  he  hath.” 

We  have  ghastly  examples  in  Ribera  and  Monti- 
celli.  The  one  in  trying  for  light  and  shade  made 
his  shadows  too  black;  the  other  got  pretty 
colour  and  lost  all  else;  whereas  a man  who 
modestly  tries  to  make  the  drawing,  the  values 
and  the  colour  as  they  appear  is  apt  if  he 
has  ability  to  do  all  three  well.  Each  depends 
on  the  other.  You  cannot  get  really  accurately 
modelled  drawing  without  true  colour.  Indeed,  if 
by  some  miracle  one  were  able  to  paint  each 
colour  right  in  tone,  shape  and  shift  the  drawing 
would  come  by  itself.  And  so  with  light  and 
shade  and  tone  values  or  relations.  They  are 
simply  other  names  for  colour.  Colour  is  simply 
another  name  for  them.  The  truest  drawing  is  a 
melange  of  light  and  shade.  The  moment  a man 
searches  one  quality  for  itself  alone,  he  does,  by 
that  very  act,  strip  it  of  some  of  its  most  im- 
portant attributes.  We  too  often  forget  that  all 
things  are  made  manifest  to  us  through  the  ac- 
tion of  light.  “Light  and  shade”  cannot  truly 
be  rendered  unless  it  includes  colour  and  form. 

15 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Form,  as  it  appears  to  us,  cannot  be  rightly  indi- 
cated without  the  aid  of  colour  and  of  chiaro- 
scuro. Colour,  true  colour,  cannot  be  well 
suggested  unless  the  shapes  are  right  and  the 
modulation;  in  other  words,  the  drawing  and 
values. 

The  reason  Vermeer  made  his  drawing  so  just, 
his  values  so  true,  was  because  he  cared  so  much 
about  colour.  His  drawing  in  his  best  things  came 
right  because  the  chiaroscuro,  the  edges  and  the 
colour  were  rightly  observed.  He  loved  light  and 
shade,  he  was  a master  of  it,  and  the  only  way 
he  could  render  its  beauty  as  he  saw  it  was  by 
getting  his  drawing  and  his  subtle  colour  shifts 
just  right. 

Vermeer,  then,  told  the  truth  not  because  it 
was  wrong  not  to,  but  because  he  could  not 
render  the  beautiful  things  he  saw  unless  he 
painted  true.  A railroad  company  used  to 
have  a sign  that  employes  should  ring  up  fares 
and  added,  “Not  to  do  it  is  wrong.”  And  Dr. 
Holmes  pretended  they  said,  “ ’Tis  naughty  to  do 
wrong.” 

Vermeer,  then,  did  not  strive  to  paint  right  be- 
cause ’tis  naughty  to  do  wrong,  but  because  the 
infinitely  beautiful  subtleties  of  light  that  he  saw 

16 


Jan  Fermeer  of  Delft 

THE  SOLDIER  AND  THE  LAUGHING  GIRL 


Collection  of  Henry  C.  Frick,  New  York 


. 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

about  him  could  not  really  be  rendered  without 
true  drawing  and  colour. 

Refinement  is  a quality  which  marks  almost 
everything  that  Vermeer  made.  Probably  it  was, 
so  to  say,  a “by-product,”  a something  which 
came  of  his  effort  for  arrangement,  for  sense  of 
light,  and  was  not  as  a quality  aimed  at  or  tried 
for.  None  the  less  it  is  there.  It  marks  almost 
every  one  of  his  works.  And  this  is  the  more  re- 
markable because  it  is  a quality  conspicuously 
lacking  in  most  Dutch  artists.  Rembrandt,  great 
as  he  was,  seldom  attained  it.  Indeed,  he  is  an 
interesting  instance  of  how  great  a man  may  be 
who  almost  wholly  lacks  that  quality.  With 
Steen,  of  course,  it  is  nil.  And  the  work  of 
Metzu  is  marred  by  the  lack  of  this  same  sense 
of  refinement.  In  Terburg’s  work  it  is  there,  but 
it  is  there  an  affected  quality,  mievre  and  mincing 
and  quite  without  the  quiet  gravity  of  Vermeer. 

It  is  true  that  the  Procuress  — or  the  Courtesan , 
as  it  is  sometimes  called  — is  hardly  what  one 
would  call  very  raffine.  But  it  was  one  of  Ver- 
meer’s earlier  works,  he  was  evidently  feeling  his 
way,  and  it  is  characteristic  of  youth  to  be  brutal 
lest  it  should  be  thought  weak.  Even  the  tech- 

17 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

nique  in  this  picture,  although  it  has  certain  in- 
dubitable Vermeer  qualities,  is  not  so  ratfine  as 
that  of  much  of  his  later  work.  And  it  is  curious 
that  the  refinement  of  his  technique,  of  his  man- 
ner of  composing,  led  inevitably  to  refinement  of 
subject.  There  would  be  something  almost  gro- 
tesque about  an  indecent  picture  composed  along 
grave,  serious  lines,  although  the  Greeks  achieved 
something  like  this  in  certain  of  their  gems  and 
vases.  Conversely,  if  one  loves  quiet  severe  lines, 
cool  quiet  colours,  one  tends  almost  unconsciously 
to  grave,  almost  severe  subjects.  The  little  fig- 
ures in  Vermeer’s  Music  Lesson  of  Windsor  Castle 
seem  almost  oppressed  by  a fate,  which  was  to 
play  their  little  part  in  a quiet  and  grave  ar- 
rangement of  four-square  lines  and  sober  colours. 

This  quality  of  refinement,  indeed,  is  rather  mis- 
understood by  some  of  us.  We  speak  of  a picture 
as  “refined”  because  its  subject  is  refined  — that 
is,  not  vulgar  or  indecent.  Really  it  is  the  other 
way  about  — the  subject  is  refined  because  the 
treatment  is  refined;  that  is,  if  an  artist  loves  re- 
finement in  handling  and  composition,  no  other 
subject  will  suit  his  book.  It  is  true  that  the 
technique  of  Degas  is  excessively  refined,  and  that 
Watteau  and  Fragonard  have  hinted  at  delicate 

18 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

indecencies  in  an  accent  of  the  most  rafline.  Still 
these  are  tours  de  force.  Besides,  Degas’  subjects 
are  not  vulgar  or  even  indecent;  they  are  simply 
poignant  and  harrowing;  and  pain,  after  all,  is  re- 
fining. With  Watteau  and  with  Fragonard  the 
work  is  refined  enough,  to  be  sure,  but  there  is 
the  refinement  of  the  lace  pocket-handkerchief, 
not  of  the  steel  sword  thrice  refined. 

For  we  often  use  the  word  “refined”  when  we 
mean  anaemic  or  bloodless  or  mievre.  “Refined,” 
one  would  guess,  means  purged  of  baser  elements; 
and  when  we  speak  of  a technique  as  being  re- 
fined we  should  mean,  not  a technique  affected, 
timid  or  frivolous,  but  a technique  purged  of  all 
baser  elements.  And  that  is  particularly  its  sense 
when  applied  to  Vermeer’s  work.  His  composi- 
tion, for  instance,  is  based  on  the  elimination  of 
the  unimportant;  and  his  manner  of  painting  is 
based  on  the  revealing  of  things  by  light  rather 
than  on  gloating  over  eccentric  details.  His  line, 
which  we  have  spoken  of  elsewhere,  owes  its 
distinguished  quality  to  this  selfsame  purging  of 
trivial  elements. 

And  so  it  follows,  naturally  enough,  that  one 
very  noticeable  quality  in  Vermeer  is  his  sense  of 
selection.  Apart  from  his  technical  skill,  not  a 

19 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

little  of  the  charm  of  his  pictures  comes  from  his 
coldly  exquisite  sense  of  the  right  thing  for  the 
right  place.  This  sense  does  not  appear  strongly 
in  his  first  work,  the  Courtesan , as  we  have  seen. 
While  it  is  good  in  composition,  it  certainly  does 
not  show  any  reticence  in  selection.  The  picture 
of  Martha  and  Mary , again,  while  it  has  some  fine 
points,  does  not  err  in  being  ultr a-r affine . In  the 
Milk-woman  he  seems  to  have  come  to  a realizing 
sense  of  the  value  of  a simple  motif.  The  com- 
position is  simpler  in  line  than  the  earlier  ones, 
yet  it  is  not  so  exquisite  as  are  his  later  compo- 
sitions. 

Art,  that  is  pictorial  art,  has  always  been  one 
of  the  signs  of  commercial  prosperity,  and  usually 
the  climax  or  apogee  of  a country’s  art  has  coin- 
cided with  that  country’s  decadence.  One  notes 
this  in  the  history  of  Greek  art  and  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance.  A reason  for  it  is  not  far  to  seek. 
When  a country  has  been  fighting  for  its  freedom, 
usually  the  beginning  of  a country’s  greatness, 
many  of  the  best  men  have  been  soldiers. 
Again,  the  money  and  interest  of  the  country  have 
turned,  naturally  enough,  to  war  and  not  to  the 
arts.  Later,  when  the  battle  has  been  fought  and 


20 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 


won,  men  have  been  willing  to  amuse  themselves 
by  the  study  and  purchase  of  art. 

Certainly  this  was  true  of  Holland,  though  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  even  during  the  fierc- 
est struggles  of  the  war,  painters  were  serenely 
working  at  their  craft,  blithely  painting  pic- 
tures that  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  war. 

Still  it  may  be  said,  from  our  point  of  view, 

that  the  climax  of  Dutch  art  occurred  after  the 
fighting  had  ceased,  and  it  occurred,  too,  when 

Holland  had  begun  to  take  the  downward  steps 

that  gradually  led  her  to  the  position  of  a third- 
rate  power. 

Vermeer  was  born  in  1632,  twenty-four  years 
after  the  Peace  of  Antwerp,  and  when  he  died, 
still  a young  man,  in  1675,  Holland  had  already 
ceased  to  be  a great  power.  Yet,  from  our  point 
of  view,  the  art  of  Holland  culminated  in  the 
work  of  Vermeer. 

The  country  was  immensely  prosperous,  even 
though  the  intense  national  spirit  created  by  the 
War  of  Independence  had  begun  to  die  out.  It  is 
in  just  such  times  as  these  that  great  art  is  cre- 
ated. And  Vermeer,  working  in  his  peaceful  town 
of  Delft  through  the  piping  times  of  peace,  was 
slowly  creating  it.  From  all  that  one  can  see  the 


21 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

drums  and  tramplings  of  Louis  XIV’s  conquests 
did  not  disturb  his  quiet  little  studio. 

Some  have  said  that  his  later  work  shows  traces 
of  French  influence,  but  this  would  be  exceedingly 
hard  to  prove.  It  is  true  that  Vermeer’s  later 
work  was  much  smoother  in  surface  and  more  ele- 
gant in  facture  than  his  earliest  work,  which  was 
rather  heavy  and  empale  or  loaded.  It  is  also 
true  that  this  same  change  took  place  in  the  work 
of  Nicholas  Maes,  as  the  direct  result  of  French 
influence,  but  this  can  hardly  be  said  to  prove 
that  Vermeer’s  change  was  also  the  direct  result 
of  French  influence.  As  a matter  of  fact,  all  over 
Holland  there  was  a distinct  reaction  against  the 
heavy  tortured  surface  of  Rembrandt  and  of  Rem- 
brandt’s pupils.  Some  of  his  pupils  even,  like  Bols 
and  Maes,  joined  in  this  reaction,  which,  though 
much  decried  by  the  cognoscenti  of  these  and 
other  days,  was  doubtless,  on  the  whole,  a sensi- 
ble, healthy  movement.  Probably  this  movement 
was  a good  deal  influenced  by  the  French  style. 
Le  Roi  Soleil  had  conquered  in  taste  as  well  as  in 
arms,  and,  moreover,  the  French  style  had,  as  it 
always  had,  the  advantage  of  good  sense  and  logic 
on  its  side,  however  much  it  may  have  been  lack- 
ing in  sentiment.  So,  in  this  way,  it  might  be 


22 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 

said  that  Vermeer  may  have  been  indirectly  af- 
fected by  the  French  influence,  though  it  is  prob- 
able that  in  his  case  this  influence  chimed  in  with 
his  own  innate  good  sense  about  technique. 

One  hears  a good  deal  nowadays  about  naivete 
in  art.  But  one  must  distinguish  between  differ- 
ent sorts  of  naivete.  There  is,  for  instance,  naivete 
of  intention,  of  execution,  of  vision.  The  cave- 
dweller  who  scratched  a mammoth  on  a shoulder- 
bone  was  naif  in  intention.  He  recorded  his  men- 
tal concept  of  the  mammoth  — not  its  appearance. 
A child’s  drawing  is  naif  in  intention,  and  in  exe- 
cution as  well.  With  Vermeer,  the  intention  was 
full  of  artifice  — the  execution  very  habile  — but 
the  vision  was  absolutely  naif.  He  saw  as  a man 
cured  of  congenital  blindness  might  see  — abso- 
lutely without  prejudice.  His  vision  would  have 
been  photographic  if  it  had  not  been  so  much 
truer  than  a photograph.  He  avoided  the  many 
errors  of  the  photograph,  but  his  eye  had  some- 
thing of  its  absolute  impersonality  of  vision.  His 
choice  of  subject,  his  arrangement  and  his  tech- 
nique were  immensely  personal  and  voulu , but  his 
vision  was  absolutely  impersonal,  unprejudiced,  naif 
and  innocent. 


23 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

An  instance  of  this  naivete  of  vision  may  be 
given  from  the  way  in  which  he  makes  eyes,  for 
of  course  the  making  was  modified  considerably 
by  the  vision.  Now  painters — even  such  realists  as 
the  Dutchmen  — have  made  an  eye  by  working 
in  the  sense  of  the  form,  as  it  were:  lining  in  the 
upper  lid,  the  lower  lid,  etc.  With  Vermeer  the 
whole  thing  is  made  by  the  light  and  shade.  An 
eye  appears  like  an  eye  simply  because  the  blot- 
tings  of  light  and  of  shadow  vouchsafed  to  have  it 
come  that  way.  This  is  particularly  well  illus- 
trated in  The  Lace-Maker  where  the  girl’s  left  eye 
is  indicated  purely  by  the  light  and  shade.  When 
one  looks  at  it  by  itself  it  seems  almost  startling. 
Yet  so  right  is  it  that  one  never  notices  it  at  all 
till  someone  points  it  out.  The  Lace-Maker  in- 
deed throughout  is  an  admirable  example  of  naif 
vision.  Her  right  hand  again,  beautifully  drawn 
for  Vermeer,  is  made  purely  by  the  light  and 
shade.  Another  good  example  of  this  sort  of 
thing  is  the  Head  of  a Young  Girl , in  the  Hague 
Gallery. 

It  may  then  be  said  that  Vermeer’s  vision  was 
as  impersonal  as  that  of  any  painter  who  has  ever 
lived.  Things  seemed  to  him  as  they  appeared. 
It  might  seem  that  this  would  be  so  with  all 

24 


Jan  F ermeer  of  Delft 


THE  LACE-MAKER 

Museum  of  the  Louvre,  Paris 


. 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 


painters,  but,  curiously  enough,  it  is  not.  Most 
painters  intend  to  paint  the  thing  seen  as  it  ap- 
pears; but  while  they  often  enough  get  the  general 
effect,  in  some  detail  or  other  they  paint  not  the 
appearance  of  the  thing  but  rather  their  mental 
concept  of  the  thing.  This  shows  particularly  in 
the  way  many  painters  do  mouths  or  eyes  or 
hands.  They  would  paint  a bit  of  still-life  quite 
objectively  and,  humanly  speaking,  just  as  it  ap- 
pears; but  when  they  attempt  an  eye  or  a mouth, 
they  lose  their  sang-froid  and  begin  lining  it  in  for 
all  the  world  like  a primitive.  If  good  acting  is  to 
hold  the  mirror  up  to  nature,  good  painting,  one 
would  say,  should  hold  it  a hundred  times  longer. 
Yet  constantly  we  find  painters  rendering  a thing 
by  a sort  of  receipt  of  handling  rather  than  mak- 
ing it  spot  for  spot  as  it  appears  in  nature. 

Chardin  said,  when  asked  how  he  painted,  that 
he  kept  putting  on  touches  till  the  thing  looked 
finished;  and,  curiously  enough,  Monet  has  said  al- 
most the  same  thing.  One  feels  that  Vermeer 
must  have  worked  in  something  like  the  same 
spirit.  Although  he  was  so  skilful  that  he  usu- 
ally managed  to  conceal  traces  of  his  method,  oc- 
casionally his  square  touch,  or  his  pointille  touch, 
betrays  it. 


25 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

In  all  the  history  of  painting  one  finds  two  sorts 
of  ways  of  making  the  thing:  rendering  “by  the 
spot,”  and  getting  a “fused”  rendering.  El  Greco 
was  perhaps  the  first  man  to  render  “by  the 
spot.”  And  Velasquez  followed  him,  although  he 
was  skilful  enough  to  obtain  the  fused  look  as 
well.  Other  painters,  of  whom  Rubens  is  a su- 
preme example,  have  thought  most  of  the  fused, 
swept-together  stroke  which  makes  for  apparently 
skilful  execution.  The  trouble  with  their  way  is 
that,  in  making  the  stroke,  in  sweeping  the  edges 
together  and  thinking  of  the  surface,  one  is  a 
little  apt  to  forget  the  exact  aspect  and  colour 
value  of  the  different  masses  or  “spots.” 

The  modern  impressionists,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  the  most  marked  examples  of  painting  by  the 
spot;  they  sacrifice  everything  — handling,  detail, 
surface  — to  getting  the  different  patches  of 
colour  right,  one  in  relation  to  the  other.  As  is 
pointed  out  elsewhere,  men  who  have  painted  in 
this  manner  get  a sense  of  the  relations  of  colour 
values  that  nothing  else  seems  to  give. 

Vermeer  seems  more  than  most  men  to  have 
united  these  two  qualities  of  painting  by  the  spot 
and  yet  keeping  his  surface  good.  His  work  sel- 
dom looks  very  fused,  yet  his  surface  is  often  very 

2 6 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 


smooth  but  not  disagreeable.  He  seems  to  have 
tried  to  make  his  pictures  finished  and  smooth  as 
the  men  about  him  did;  yet  at  any  moment  he 
stood  ready  to  imperil  the  harmony  of  handling 
of  his  picture  by  working  those  curious  little 
round  spots  of  colour  into  his  half  light  when  he 
felt  the  fused  look  of  things  to  be  overmarked. 

One  wonders  why  it  is  that  Vermeer,  even  after 
being  rediscovered  for  fifty  years,  should  still  have 
missed  recognition  with  the  generality.  It  may  be 
from  a certain  repellant  quality  which  his  work 
exerts  in  spite  of  its  perfection  — perhaps  even  on 
account  of  it.  Some  of  the  very  greatest  artists 
have  had  this  quality  — Da  Vinci,  one  would  say, 
and  Velasquez.  This  is  not  to  say  that  their 
work  remains  repellant  — indeed,  like  caviare, 
olives,  or  may-wine  it  comes  to  exert  a particular 
charm  on  account  of  its  peculiarity.  But  one 
does  say  that  the  simple-minded  person  of  average 
intelligence  who  purely  loves  Raphael  and  Del 
Sarto  and  Murillo,  instinctively  detests  Da  Vinci 
and  Velasquez  and  Vermeer.  In  brooding  over 
what  may  be  the  reason  of  this  it  occurs  to  one 
that  it  may  spring  from  the  impersonal  quality  of 
the  men:  their  work  is  done  in  a cool,  grave,  seri- 

27 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

the  best  arrangement  of  line  and  colour  that  he 
could  achieve,  and  then  have  rendered  it  as  truly 
as  it  was  in  him  to  do. 

In  trying  to  determine  whether  a picture  is 
or  is  not  by  Vermeer  we  have  certain  details  to 
help  us.  For  instance,  there  is  the  famous  lion- 
headed chair  which  appears  in  at  least  ten  of  his 
pictures;  there  is  a little  white  jug  of  a particu- 
lar shape  which  appears  in  four;  there  is  a 
stained-glass  window  of  a special  design  which 
appears  in  four  or  five;  there  are  the  various 
rugs,  painted  in  a peculiar  manner  and  placed 
in  a special,  rumpled  way  in  the  composition; 
there  is  the  Vermeer  map,  painted  as  only  he 
could  paint  it  and  placed  in  a certain  manner  in 
relation  to  the  figures.  If  one  found  a picture 
with  only  one  of  these  things  in  it,  that  would 
not  prove  much,  but  if  one  found  all  five  it 
would  go  far  to  make  one  think  one  had  found 
a Vermeer.  It  recalls  the  Bertillon  System:  one 
detail  may  not  matter  much,  two  matter  a great 
deal,  three  are  almost  conclusive.  It  is  not  a 
very  artistic  way  of  arriving  at  a decision,  but  it 
helps  one  to  prove  one’s  point. 

Then  there  are  things  less  commonplace  but  to 

30 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

WOMAN  WEIGHING  PEARLS  OR  GOLD 

Collection  of  P.  A.  B.  Widener,  Philadelphia 


VERMEER  OF 


t il  UT 


n trying  to  determine  whether  a,  picture  is 
Vermeer  we  b ;ve  certain  details  to 

1 er.vU-d  Ov  r vhlch  appears  in  it  least  ten  of  his 

nj:ici  to  aasMsuv  hai 
0.100  510  iJJiAH'l  0/IHDI3'//  VIAMOW 

A 1 H a J 30 A J 1 H 3 .3  .A  .3  30  '/01T03 JJoO 

-■non; 

■ re  is  J c Vermeer  map,  painted  as  only  he 
» tc  f.gurcs.  If  one  found  a picture 

three  . most  conclusive.  It  is  no*  a 
: are  thi  loss  common  tv  ace  but  to 


THE  ART  OF  JAN  VERMEER 


the  artist  just  as  conclusive.  For  instance,  the 
recently  discovered  Vermeer  now  owned  by  Mr. 
Widener  had  but  few  of  these  marks.  But 
the  woman’s  figure  is  placed  on  the  canvas  in 
relation  to  the  window,  to  the  table  and  to  the 
picture  behind  in  exactly  the  way  Vermeer  so 
often  placed  things,  and  in  a way  rather  different 
from  the  placement  of  other  artists.  Then  there 
is  the  placing  of  the  window  to  the  extreme 
left;  Rembrandt  has  done  something  of  this  sort, 
but  not  quite  the  same. 

But  in  addition  to  all  these  things,  and  what 
counts  rather  more  than  anything  in  an  artist’s 
eyes,  is  the  colour.  A man  may  look  at  a pho- 
tograph of  a picture  for  a long  time  without 
coming  to  a decision,  but  the  minute  he  sees  the 
colour  of  it  his  mind  is  made  up  at  once:  there  is 
a peculiar  colour  quality  in  Vermeer,  a “blonde” 
look  which  no  one  else  of  his  time  got,  and 
which  materially  helps  in  making  up  one’s  mind. 

But  there  is  not  only  the  colour  quality  to 
help,  but  the  colour  arrangement  as  well.  No 
one  could  look  at  the  Lace-Maker , for  instance, 
and  doubt  for  a moment  its  being  a Vermeer, 
after  once  noting  the  colour  arrangement.  No 
one  of  his  time  happened  to  make  those  colour 

3i 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

combinations.  That  colour  combination  in  itself 
would  be  enough  to  decide  one  unless  the  other 
elements  were  very  obviously  lacking. 

Then  there  is  the  manner  of  making,  the  fac- 
ture.  No  one  else  in  Holland  would  have  painted 
fingers  in  the  way  they  are  made  in  this  same 
Lace-Maker.  There  is  a peculiar  blocky  render- 
ing of  the  planes  that  no  one  else  had.  Franz 
Hals  used  the  square  touch,  but  he  used  it  for 
exaggerating  his  high  lights,  which  was  not  at 
all  Vermeer’s  method.  Many  other  parts  of  the 
picture  are  also  betrayed  by  the  handling. 

From  all  these  things  it  may  be  seen  that  it 
should  not  be  difficult  to  know  a picture  by 
Vermeer. 


32 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


CHAPTER  II 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


HAT  Holland  into  which  Vermeer  was  bom 


was,  in  many  respects,  not  unlike  the  Hol- 


land of  to-day.  There  were  the  same  canals,  the 
same  little  brick-paved  streets,  which  one  sees  in 
De  Hooch’s  pictures,  or,  for  the  matter  of  that, 
in  Vermeer’s  own.  And  there  were  the  quaint  old 
houses  — in  those  days  not  quaint  at  all  — which 
still  survive.  These  also  may  be  seen  in  Ver- 
meer’s Street  in  Delft  and  in  his  View  of  Delft.  In- 
doors, in  houses  of  the  humbler  kind,  the  bed- 
steads were  built  into  the  walls,  and  painted  blue, 
like  enough,  or  some  homely  colour  that  assorted 
well  with  the  grey  of  the  wall.  In  houses  of  the 
better  sort  there  were  fine  large  rooms  — some- 
times with  tessellated  floors;  the  windows,  often 
enough,  were  of  stained  glass  with  quaintly  twisted 
lead  work.  Rich  rugs  were  to  be  found,  strange 
to  say,  on  the  tables  instead  of  on  the  floors;  and 
there  were  fine  specimens  of  Japanese  or  Chinese 


35 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


faience  brought  from  over-seas  in  the  high-masted 
Dutch  ships  which  controlled  the  India  trade. 

For  Holland,  since  the  Spanish  War,  was  grown 
to  be  a very  rich  state.  War,  which  to  most 
countries  brings  poverty,  had  to  her  given  riches. 
The  Dutch  had  founded  their  East  India  trade  on 
the  ruins  of  that  of  the  Spanish  and  of  the  Por- 
tuguese; nor  had  they,  as  yet,  lost  it  to  the  Eng- 
lish. Many  of  the  merchant  families  had  become 
rich,  and  they,  and  the  nobles  about  them,  spent 
their  money  freely.  Pictures  were  a hobby  of  the 
day,  and  many  a great  landowner  or  merchant 
was  proud  of  his  well-chosen  gallery. 

The  winning  of  their  death  struggle  with  Spain 
had  given  to  the  Dutch  a confidence  in  themselves 
and  a liking  and  admiration  for  their  country 
which  nothing  else  can  give.  It  is  characteristic 
of  Dutch  art  that  its  painters  seemed  satisfied  with 
what  they  had  about  them.  While  it  is  true  that 
certain  misguided  ones  went  to  Italy  and  there 
learned  of  third-rate  masters  a second-rate  style, 
still,  for  the  most  part,  Dutch  painters  seemed 
very  well  pleased  with  their  immediate  surround- 
ings, and  painted  them  in  a way  which  no  one  has 
been  able  to  do  since.  Nothing  that  was  native 
and  smacked  of  the  soil  came  amiss  to  them. 

36 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


There  was  even  a painter  who  painted  toads  and 
lizards  and  crawling  things.  Whatever  existed  and 
had  colour  and  life  seemed  to  these  Dutch  painters 
interesting.  Besides  the  portrait  painters,  land- 
scape painters  and  genre  painters,  there  were  ar- 
tists who  specialised  in  certain  subjects.  Wouwer- 
man  painted  military  pictures  — one  still  remem- 
bers the  white  horse  he  affected.  Paul  Potter 
painted  animals;  the  Honthorsts,  poultry;  Van 
Huysum,  flowers. 

Besides  these  animals,  poultry,  lizards  and  dead 
creatures  there  were  plenty  of  men  and  women  to 
be  painted,  and  of  a marked  and  interesting  per- 
sonality. 

One  guesses  that  the  archers  in  Hals’s  and  Rem- 
brandt’s and  Van  der  Heist’s  pictures  give  one  a 
fairly  good  idea  of  the  type  of  men  who  lived  and 
moved  in  those  days.  There  was  another  type, 
too,  the  more  aristocratic  type,  which  Vermeer 
himself  has  hinted  at  in  the  man  who  appears  in 
the  Windsor  Castle  Music  Lesson.  This  distin- 
guished, rather  melancholy  young  man  might  have 
been  the  Sebastian  Van  Storck  of  whom  Pater 
writes  so  delightfully.  Then,  too,  there  was  the 
Spanish  type  which  still  persists  in  Holland,  after 
now  these  many  years.  The  English,  who,  nat- 

37 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

urally  enough,  did  not  like  the  Hollanders,  have 
given  us  a rather  false  idea  of  them.  Doubtless 
there  exist  plenty  of  the  heavy  phlegmatic 
schnapps-drinking  Dutchmen  whom  so  many  Eng- 
lish writers  have  caricatured;  but  there  are  now, 
and  were  in  Vermeer’s  day,  types  much  more  raf- 
fine  and  distinguished.  One  gets  an  idea  of  what 
some  of  them  were  like  from  Terburg’s  marvellous 
Peace  of  Munster,  where  the  men  who  posed  were 
diplomats  and  aristocrats  rather  than  the  self- 
complacent  bourgeoisie  who  ruffled  it  before  Hals 
and  Van  der  Heist. 

In  a study  of  Vermeer,  however,  the  types  of 
men  are  not  so  important  as  the  types  of  women; 
for  in  his  pictures  women  more  often  appear.  He 
was  not  primarily  a painter  of  women  in  the  sense 
that  Gainsborough  was,  or  Watteau;  but  one 
guesses  it  was  more  convenient  for  him  to  get 
them  to  pose.  Doubtless,  too,  their  more  vivid  and 
picturesque  costumes  made  them  more  fit  to  be 
placed  as  keynotes  in  his  little  pictures.  It  is  true 
that  in  certain  of  his  pictures  the  women  have  a 
good  deal  of  charm.  The  Pearl  Necklace  of 
the  Berlin  Gallery  has  something  of  the  Eternal 
Feminine  about  her.  She  is  one  of  a score  or 
more  of  pictured  women  whom  one  cannot  forget. 

38 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S'  DAY 


But  in  the  main  Vermeer’s  little  women  serve 
their  turn  as  a keynote  for  the  picture,  simply  and 
modestly  enough,  like  true  huisvrouzven,  without  un- 
duly calling  attention  to  themselves. 

Vermeer  often  paints  a type  of  woman,  — 
whether  he  liked  it  or  not  one  can  only  guess,  — a 
type  which  also  appears  in  the  work  of  Terburg. 
One  sees  just  the  same  type  of  woman  to  this 
day  in  Holland.  A blonde  woman,  with  full 
rounded  forehead,  a retrousse  nose  and  a rather 
retreating  chin.  These  little  women  are  not 
beautiful  according  to  Greek  standards,  but  they 
are  quite  typical  of  the  Hob  and  of  Vermeer’s 
day  — and  of  today.  After  all,  they  had  skulls 
in  their  heads,  and  the  light  fell  on  them.  That 
gave  construction  and  light  and  shade  to  be 
grappled  with,  and  a man  may  reveal  himself  as 
a great  artist  by  his  treatment  of  these  two 
things  alone. 

The  pictures  which  the  aristocracy  and  the  rich 
bourgeoisie  liked  were  precisely  the  kind  of  pictures 
Vermeer  painted.  As  has  been  hinted,  they  liked 
their  own  country,  they  were  proud  of  it  and  liked 
to  see  it  portrayed.  They  were  proud  of  their  fine 
houses  with  their  tessellated  floors,  their  fine  rugs 
and  their  Chinese  vases.  Proud,  too,  they  were  of 

39 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

their  women,  with  pretty  white  satin  dresses  and 
natty  morning  jackets  trimmed  with  swansdown. 
These  were  the  things  they  delighted  in,  and  these 
were  the  things  that  Terburg  and  Metzu  and  Ver- 
meer delighted  to  paint.  There  never  was  a bet- 
ter instance  of  cause  and  effect.  The  patrons 
liked  certain  subjects  — the  artists  painted  them. 
Yet  it  is  quite  evident  that  these  subjects  were  in 
themselves  delightful  to  the  painter.  They  could 
hardly  have  painted  them  with  such  gusto,  year 
in  and  year  out,  had  it  not  been  so.  It  was  not 
as  if  they  had  never  known  any  other  sort  of 
subject.  Far  from  it.  Certain  of  them,  such  as 
Terburg,  were  travelled  men,  who  had  been  in 
Italy  and  in  Spain,  but  who  yet,  having  seen 
what  they  had  seen,  deliberately  preferred  to 
paint  the  sort  of  conversation-piece  that  delighted 
the  rich  Dutch  buyers. 

And  they  could  have  advanced  excellent  reasons 
for  preferring  this  sort  of  subject  to  any  other.  A 
conversation-piece  after  all  was  not,  in  subject,  so 
much  removed  from  the  sacred  conversations  and 
concerts  champetres  of  the  Venetians  — motifs  uni- 
versally recognised  as  among  the  most  supremely 
artistic  subjects  which  have  been  done.  It  is  true 
that  the  men  and  women  in  these  Venetian  idylls 

40 


Artist  unknown.  ( Wrongly  attributed  to  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft;  possibly  by  Pieter  de  Ilooch) 

DUTCH  ROOM 
Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 

were  clad  in  rich  stuffs,  and  that  they  had  a cer- 
tain grave  beauty  that  only  the  Venetians  knew 
how  to  give.  But,  as  has  been  suggested  before, 
the  Dutch  admired  the  quaint,  prim  beauty  of 
their  own  women;  and  enjoyed,  too,  the  fine  stiff 
clothes  and  stately  mansions  with  quaintly  clipped 
trees  which  their  artificers  had  made  them.  So 
they  painted  the  subjects  they  had  at  hand,  and 
in  so  doing  they  did  very  well.  It  was  clever  and 
amusing  for  a radiant  but  borne  Roi  Soleil  con- 
temptuously to  say  “Otez  ces  magots-la .”  The  mot 
is  good,  but  the  sentiment  is  vulgar.  For  if  you 
choose  to  be  literary  we  have  come  to  feel  that 
man  is  as  good  as  man  — that  the  Dutchmen  who 
cut  the  dykes  of  their  canals  were  as  heroic  as  the 
Venetians  who  merely  paddled  gondolas  in  theirs; 
that  the  men  who  fought  at  Antwerp  were  as 
good  as  those  who  fought  at  Lepanto;  that  the 
simple  Dutch  huisvrouzven  were  as  good  as  the 
Venetian  courtesans;  that  the  light  that  came 
in  through  the  quaint  Dutch  window-panes  and 
bull’s-eyes  was  as  beautiful  as  the  light  that 
drifted  through  the  dim  glassware  of  Murano. 
“There’s  nothing  good  or  ill  but  thinking  makes  it 
so.”  The  Dutch  honestly  thought  their  land,  their 
houses,  their  women  were  beautiful.  And  think- 

41 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

ing  so  with  all  their  might,  their  painting,  too, 
was  beautiful,  and  so  it  seems  to  us. 

The  men  who  bought  these  pictures  were  men 
who  had  adventured  in  the  India  trade  and  had 
come  back  with  pockets  well  lined  with  gold  mo- 
hurs  and  with  pieces  of  eight;  or  rough  seafaring 
men  who  had  stopped  the  Spanish  caravels  on  the 
high  seas  and  piled  gold  bullion  and  silver  in- 
gots, and  diamonds  from  Brazil,  into  their  high- 
pooped  ships;  or  saturnine  aristocrats,  rich  from 
the  happy  ending  of  the  Spanish  War.  These  men 
were  not  the  rough  Dutchmen  whom  the  English 
saw  or  imagined;  often  they  were  men  most  re- 
fined, who  knew  their  world  as  well  as  another, 
who  tasted  curiously  every  form  of  aesthetic  en- 
joyment then  known.  These  were  the  men  who 
could  go  to  war  over  a few  precious  tulips.  They 
were  great  collectors  of  rich  wares  from  China  and 
from  Japan.  They  knew  and  collected  the  rich 
rugs  brought  on  the  backs  of  camels  on  the  cara- 
van routes  which  their  merchants  in  the  Russia 
trade  got  at  Archangel  — or,  perchance,  venturing 
greatly,  bought  at  the  Great  Fair  at  Nijni-Nov- 
gorod.  Their  seamen,  since  the  Jesuit  movement 
was  crushed  in  Japan,  were  the  only  Europeans 
allowed  in  Tokio  or  Nagasaki;  and  they  brought 

42 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


home  beautiful  Japanese  vases,  curious  furniture, 
and,  it  may  be  now  and  then,  some  quaint  book 
of  outland  prints,  or  one  of  the  strange  wall  pic- 
tures that  the  slant-eyed  children  of  the  chrysan- 
themum are  wont  to  hang  on  their  paper  walls. 
They  knew  and  loved  many  forms  of  art,  and, 
since  to  them  the  art  of  picture-making  was  the 
highest,  they  always  desired  to  have  pictures  by 
the  most  cunning  artists  on  the  high-studded  walls 
of  their  fine  houses.  They  knew,  too,  how  to 
place  them  in  their  dark  frames  of  wood  orna- 
mented by  minute  crenellated  lines,  as  we  can 
well  see  in  the  pictures  by  Terburg,  De  Hooch, 
Metzu  and  Vermeer.  They  seldom  made  great  col- 
lections, as  the  rich  men  of  our  day  are  wont  to  do, 
but  each  room  in  their  great  houses  was  fittingly 
adorned  by  some  conversation  piece  in  its  intri- 
cately moulded  frame.  Or  it  may  be,  if  the  owner 
had  a more  curious  taste,  there  were  here  to  be 
seen  cocks  and  hens  of  a Chinese  breed  painted 
by  Hondekoeter,  or  rare  flowers  by  Van  Huy- 
sums  — or  even  snakes  and  newts  and  lizards 
painted  by  the  eccentric  Otto  Marseus. 

It  was  not  only  the  great  ones  of  the  Dutch 
world  who  bought  pictures.  Everyone  bought 
pictures.  John  Evelyn  says  in  his  Diary:  “Roter- 

43 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

dam  . . . where  was  their  annual  marte  or  faire 
so  furnished  with  pictures  — especially  landscapes 
and  Drolleries  as  they  call  those  clownish  repre- 
sentations that  I was  amaz’d.  Some  I bought  and 
sent  into  England.  The  reson  of  this  store  of  pic- 
tures and  their  cheapness,  proceeds  from  their 
want  of  land  to  employ  their  stock,  so  that  it  is 
an  ordinary  thing  to  find  a common  Farmer  lay 
out  two  or  £3000  in  this  commodity.  Their 
houses  are  full  of  them  and  they  vend  them  at 
their  fairs  to  very  greate  gains.” 

And  another  Englishman  writes  of  the  men  of 
Leyden:  “The  interior  of  the  Dutch  houses  is  yett 
more  rich  than  their  outside.  Not  in  hangings 
but  in  pictures  which  the  poorest  there  are  fur- 
nished withal,  not  a cobbler  but  hath  his  toyes 
for  ornament.” 

It  is  curious,  as  Fromentin  has  pointed  out, 
that  though  the  Dutch  had  just  come  through  an 
Homeric  struggle  with  the  Spaniards,  one  would 
never  guess  this  from  their  art.  There  are  a few 
pictures  by  Wouwerman,  it  is  true,  in  which  sol- 
diers appear,  but  usually  stopping  at  an  inn,  or  in 
some  degage  attitude.  Ruskin  speaks  with  great 
disgust  of  some  of  these  fighting  pictures,  but 
they  are  comparatively  few.  Soldiers,  too,  appear 

44 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


in  Terburg’s  and  in  Metzu’s  pictures,  but  always 
in  a genre  sense,  so  to  say,  — that  is,  they  are 
playing  cards  or  dice  or  loafing  in  a guard-room 
or  flirting  with  a woman.  When  the  Dutch  were 
at  their  best,  they  seemed  to  recognise  their  in- 
capacity for  historical  or  religious  composition  and 
to  hold  firmly  to  the  genre  which  they  made  so 
well.  It  is  true  that  Rembrandt  and  his  pupils 
did  a number  of  historical  and  religious  pictures, 
but  the  most  successful  of  these  are  ones  which, 
like  the  Supper  at  Emmaus,  are  really  genre  pic- 
tures. Vermeer  himself  tried  his  hand  at  certain 
sacred  and  mythological  subjects,  but  one  would 
say  that  these  are  distinctly  among  the  poorest  of 
his  works. 

What  he  really  made  well  and  what  he  seemed 
to  love  best  to  make,  were  sober  little  composi- 
tions of  horizontal  and  vertical  lines  of  wall  and 
picture,  broken  by  some  charming  arabesque  of  a 
little  woman  engaged  at  some  pleasantly  futile 
task.  And  this  was  not  merely  his  own  idiosyn- 
crasy. De  Hooch  did  much  the  same  thing,  with 
certain  differences  in  composition  which  shall  be 
shown  later.  Terburg,  in  a different  manner, 
treated  much  the  same  subjects,  and  Metzu, 
though  his  taste  was  not  so  exquisite  and  led  him 

45 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

into  certain  aberrations,  was  still  in  the  main  a 
painter  of  quiet  interiors. 

One  reason  why  the  Dutch  did  not  attempt  to 
do  much  religious  work  was  that  the  Protestant 
faith  was  opposed  to  the  decoration  of  churches 
by  pictures;  it  was  not  so  very  far  from  the  time 
of  the  Iconoclasts.  And  while,  as  we  have  seen, 
artists  like  Vermeer  did  an  occasional  religious  pic- 
ture of  an  easel  painting  size,  this  was  compara- 
tively uncommon.  So  far  as  one  knows,  there  was 
no  mural  decoration  of  churches.  Religious  pic- 
tures were  occasionally  painted,  but  as  a rule 
they  were  small.  Metzu  did  a few  — and  they  re- 
main among  the  worst  of  his  career.  Vermeer 
himself  painted  Mary  and  Martha , and  while  he 
has  not  made  himself  ridiculous  as  poor  Metzu 
did,  the  picture  remains  one  of  his  less  interesting 
works.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  even  when 
Vermeer  ventured  into  strange  seas,  his  instinctive 
good  taste  was  a compass  which  prevented  him 
from  running  against  the  rocks  of  ridicule  with  so 
horrible  a crash  as  some  of  his  contemporaries 
suffered,  although  the  figure  of  the  woman  in  his 
Novum  Testamentum  is  rather  funny. 

One  of  the  astounding  signs  of  this  time  was  the 
number  of  painters  — and  good  painters  — who 

4 6 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


existed  in  proportion  to  the  population.  There 
were  in  all  Holland  not  more  than  a couple  of 
million  souls  — not  so  many  as  one  of  our  great 
cities  holds  — and  yet  what  a glorious  company 
of  artists  existed  among  them!  Besides  the  very 
great  ones  whom  we  know,  there  were  Otto  van 
Veen  of  Leyden,  who  taught  Rubens;  Abraham 
Bloemaert  of  Gorkum,  who  “painted  landscapes 
and  animals  in  good  taste.”  There  was  Cornelis 
Poellenburg  of  Utrecht,  and  worthy  pupils  of  his 
were  Daniel  Vertange  and  Jan  van  Haensberg. 
Johan  Wynants  of  Haarlem  did  his  best  at  land- 
scape and  Jan  Daniel  de  Heem  of  Utrecht  was  of 
the  company.  Among  the  lesser  men  who  prac- 
tised the  painting  of  simple  souls,  such  as  Ver- 
meer loved  to  paint,  were  Pieter  van  Laar,  the 
two  Ostades  and  Jan  Steen.  A worthy  landscape 
painter  was  Jan  Both  of  Utrecht,  and  Herman 
Swaneveld  of  Woerden  was  not  unknown.  One  of 
the  very  few  military  painters  was  Asselyn,  who 
painted  battles  “with  a delicate  pencil.”  Gerard 
Dou  was  very  famous  in  his  day,  and  there  were 
those  who  liked  the  work  of  John  Fyt,  “a  painter 
of  beasts.”  Benenburg  of  Utrecht  was  bravely 
painting  landscapes  the  while. 

We  have  spoken  of  Philip  Wouwerman;  he 

47 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

painted  battles  and  hunting  pieces,  travellers  and 
robbers.  Anton  Waterloo  had  a great  vogue  at 
one  time.  Berghem  painted  cattle,  and  Paul  Pot- 
ter, hardly  so  good  as  Fromentin  seems  to  think 
him,  did  much  the  same  thing.  It  is  one  of  the 
humours  of  artistic  criticism,  by  the  way,  that 
Fromentin,  certainly  among  the  best  and  most 
sympathetic  of  art  writers,  should  have  permitted 
himself  to  spend  pages  on  Potter’s  puerile  talent 
and  on  the  other  hand  never  even  mentioned 
Vermeer. 

But  returning  to  our  artists,  let  us  speak  of  Lu- 
dolph  Backhuysen,  who  painted  storms  at  sea;  of 
Frans  Mieris,  who  painted  tempests  in  a tea-pot, 
and  of  Jan  Pieter  Slingenlandt,  who  was  “hardly 
less  accurate.”  Most  of  the  painters  specialised. 
Godfrey  Schalken  of  Dort  illuminated  night  scenes. 
Albert  Cuyp  at  one  time  was  very  famous  for  his 
sunlit  landscapes.  Karel  du  Jardin  and  Adrian 
van  de  Velde  essayed  the  same  sort  of  subject. 
Van  der  Neer  affected  moonlight  scenes,  and 
Adrian  Van  der  Werf  confectioned  delicate  trifles. 
Jacob  Van  Huysums  made  very  wonderful  flower 
pieces,  where  drops  of  water  and  crawling  ants 
could  be  seen  by  the  naked  eye,  and  Pieter  Van 
der  Hulst  of  Dort  was  not  far  behind.  There  is 

48 


HOLLAND  IN  VERMEER’S  DAY 


not  space  to  speak  in  detail  of  all  the  really  good 
painters,  but  among  them,  some  better  than 
others,  were  Cornelius  Ketel,  Bartholomew  Van 
der  Heist,  Albert  Van  Everdingen,  Gerbrandt  Van 
der  Hendrik,  Verschuuring,  Maria  van  Oosterwyck, 
Willem  Kalf,  Melchior  Hondekoeter,  Cornelis  de 
Bruyn,  the  two  Houbrakens,  Rachel  Ruisch,  Corne- 
lis du  Sart,  Jan  de  Witt,  Cornelis  Troost,  Van  Os, 
Van  Spaendonk,  Scheffer,  Ommeganck  and  others. 
The  country  pullulated  artists.  One  wonders  how 
they  all  lived,  and  yet  the  curious  thing  is  that 
this  little  country  absorbed  almost  all  of  its  own 
work,  for  Dutch  pictures  were  not  much  bought 
abroad,  until  later.  The  Dutch  purely  loved  pic- 
tures and  bought  them  when  they  could  — and,  as 
we  have  seen,  even  men  of  small  means  seem  to 
have  collected  pictures. 


49 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


, 


' 


CHAPTER  III 

VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 

NOWADAYS  one  comes  into  Delft  by  the 
railroad  into  a rather  modern  railroad  sta- 
tion; but  it  is  only  a step  into  the  market  place 
with  its  stone  pavement  where  grass,  and  now  and 
then  a flower,  peep  pleasantly  from  the  cracks. 
Everything  seems  sleepy,  the  streets,  the  houses, 
even  the  people  — except  perhaps  the  small  boy 
who  begs  a cigar  of  one  and  presently  lights  it. 
One  wanders  through  old  streets,  by  old  canals, 
seeing  here  or  there  through  the  Scotch  mist,  at 
a window  or  by  a door,  some  woman  in  quaint 
costume  of  blue  and  yellow  not  unlike  the  little 
figures  which  Vermeer  painted  in  his  View  of 
Delft — or  without  his  House  in  Delft.  Everything 
is  quiet,  almost  with  the  stillness  of  sleep. 

It  was  not  like  that  in  the  olden  time.  One 
came  into  the  town  by  the  highway,  or  mayhap 
was  dragged  in  a great  boat  up  one  of  the  still 

53 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

canals!  One  entered  by  a great  gate,  it  may  be 
by  the  Cow  gate  or  the  Hague  gate.  There  were 
several  of  these  gates  then,  strongly  built  and 
quaint  — the  Haagsche  Poort,  the  Koe  Poort, 
the  Oost  Poort,  the  Schiedam  Poort  and  still 
others.  Strolling  about  the  town  one  might  see 
the  fine  Stadt-huis,  the  Old  church  and  the  New 
— the  New  church  which  is  now  old,  since  it 
was  built  in  the  fourteenth  century.  Here  there 
were  the  Powder  Magazines,  one  of  which  blew 
up  in  Vermeer’s  day,  seriously  damaging  Delft 
and,  indeed,  killing  Vermeer’s  friend  Karel  Fa- 
britius.  Here  was  the  fine  East  India  House 
which  controlled  the  trade  of  nearby  Delftshaven, 
and  the  famous  houses  named  De  Kamerelte. 
Here  was  the  ancient  palace  of  the  Princes  of 
Orange  with  its  handsome  doorway,  and  the 
Theatre  of  Anatomy,  where  one  would  guess  Ver- 
meer never  studied.  And  here,  one  of  the  few 
places  where  we  know  Vermeer  stood,  was  the 
handsome  Gilde-huis  of  St.  Luke.  Vermeer,  for 
four  years  of  his  life,  was  head  man  of  this  guild, 
and  often  must  have  passed  in  and  out  of  the 
curious  doorway;  or,  perchance,  have  sat  on  the 
outside  bench  for  a moment  of  a summer’s  day 
with  De  Hooch  and  Fabritius,  noting  the  round 

54 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 


A STREET  IN  DELFT 

Collection  of  J.  Six,  Amsterdam 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


spots  of  sunlight,  the  checkered  shade,  on  the 
house  opposite. 

Delft  is  still  one  of  the  quaintest  and  most 
picturesque  towns  of  old  Holland.  Walking 
along  by  curious  houses  that  still  cry  aloud  to  be 
painted  by  De  Hooch  or  De  Witte,  one  does  not 
find  it  hard  to  fancy  one’s  self  in  the  days  of  Ver- 
meer. Fabritius  might  look  from  yonder  win- 
dow, and,  turning  into  the  cloister  of  St.  Agatha, 
one  almost  expects  to  find  Emanuel  de  Witte 
painting  that  famous  view  of  the  place  which 
Biirger-Thore  enthusiastically  attributed  to  Ver- 
meer. Here  is  the  spot  where  William  the  Silent 
One  fell  under  the  bullet  of  Balthazar  Ger- 
ard, — one  can  still  see  the  pistol  bullets  spat- 
tered against  the  wall.  Silent  Delft,  the  home  of 
silent  ones,  for  our  Vermeer  lies  there  too,  silent, 
in  some  obscure  corner  of  the  “Old  Church”  — 
no  mausoleum  for  him.  Only  his  work,  in  still 
small  voice,  speaks  for  him. 

Delft  was  known  as  far  back  as  the  tenth  cen- 
tury. It  grew  and  prospered  and  at  the  time  of 
Vermeer  it  was  a fine  large  town.  In  his  day 
the  potteries  were  the  great  glory  of  the  place. 
There  were  no  less  than  fifty  factories  of  four  or 
more  furnaces  beside  many  smaller  ones.  Delft 

55 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


pottery  was  one  of  the  glories  of  Holland  and  the 
tiles  and  faience  of  that  day  are  still  the  most 
sought  after  of  Delft  ware. 

Dr.  Valentiner  says  that  there  is  a tradition 
that  Vermeer  himself  sometimes  decorated  a tile 
or  a vase.  For  some  of  these  blue  and  white 
plaques  were  adorned  with  landscapes  which  one 
enthusiastic  writer  says  were  “worthy  of  the 
leading  Dutch  masters.”  This  we  cannot  tell  ab- 
solutely, for  since  his  busy  life  ended  we  have 
hardly  a word  of  Vermeer  till  Biirger-Thore  re- 
discovered him.  His  memory  faded  away;  he 
was  forgotten. 

In  1865  Vermeer  was  practically  forgotten.  It 
is  true  that  certain  works  of  his,  the  View  of 
Delft  and  The  Milkwoman , were  known,  and  they 
were  known  to  be  by  him.  But  there  was  much 
confusion  of  mind  about  various  painters  named 
Vermeer.  There  was  Van  der  Meer  of  Utrecht, 
the  two  Van  der  Meers  of  Haarlem,  as  well  as 
Van  der  Meer  or  Vermeer  of  Delft.  The  differ- 
ence between  these  men  was  not  thoroughly  under- 
stood, and  as  a rule  their  works  were  all  lumped 
together  as  by  the  same  man.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  this  should  have  been  so,  but  the  cognoscenti 
of  an  older  day  were  not  so  very  knowing,  after  all. 

56 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 

M.  Biirger-Thore,  who  was  a distinguished 
French  connoisseur,  in  going  through  the  museum 
of  the  Hague  was  particularly  impressed  by  the 
View  of  Delft.  It  seemed  to  him,  as  indeed  it  is, 
a very  remarkable  performance.  He  could  not 
get  it  out  of  his  mind,  and  presently  he  began  to 
look  about  him  for  more  Vermeers.  Not  only 
was  he  interested  in  the  work  of  the  man,  but 
something  in  the  mystery  which  surrounded  this 
artist  attracted  him.  He  often  calls  him  the 
Sphinx  of  Delft.  Biirger-Thore  was  a man  of 
leisure  who  was  often  in  one  or  another  part  of 
Europe,  and  during  his  travels  he  made  it  a point 
to  look  through  the  galleries  for  other  Vermeers. 
He  had,  too,  the  collaboration  of  various  gentle- 
men, among  them,  strange  to  say,  Sir  Charles 
Eastlake,  President  of  the  Royal  Academy,  with 
whom,  somehow,  one  does  not  associate  the  study 
of  Vermeer.  With  these  gentlemen’s  help  — with 
the  help  of  various  Dutch  archives  and  from  his 
own  acumen  or  flair  he  was  able  to  reconstitute 
a good  many  Vermeers.  In  fact,  his  enthusiasm 
carried  him  so  far  that  he  permitted  himself  to  at- 
tribute some  seventy-two  pictures  to  our  master, 
whereas  a cooler  modern  criticism  has  only  al- 
lowed some  thirty-six  or  seven.  Where  Biirger- 

57 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Thore  made  most  of  his  mistakes  in  attribution, 
was  in  the  matter  of  certain  landscapes.  It  is 
more  difficult  to  decide  precisely  whether  a land- 
scape is  by  Vermeer  or  not  because  his  peculiar 
style  of  composition  is  not  so  obvious  in  his  land- 
scape arrangement  as  it  is  in  his  figure  work. 

To  go  back  a moment  — it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  after  the  View  of  Delft , the  next  two 
Vermeers  that  Biirger-Thore  saw  were  the  Milk- 
woman and  the  House  in  Delft,  or,  as  he  calls  it, 
the  Facade  of  a Dutch  House.  These  two  pictures 
were  at  that  time  in  the  “ Cabinet,”  as  Sir 
Joshua  would  say,  of  Mynheer  Six  van  Hillegom. 

Biirger-Thore  was  mixed  up  in  the  affairs  of 
’48  and  was  forced  to  leave  France.  This  gave 
him  a chance  to  go  over  the  galleries  of  Europe 
with  great  thoroughness. 

The  next  two  Vermeers  which  he  discovered 
were  the  Head  of  a Young  Girl  in  the  Arenberg 
collection  and  a certain  Cottage  in  the  Cabinet  of 
M.  Suermondt;  this  latter,  alas,  is  not  now  con- 
sidered to  be  by  Vermeer,  though  Biirger-Thore 
says  it  is  “delicious.” 

By  i860  Biirger  was  able  to  mention  in  his 
book  on  the  museums  of  Holland  about  twelve 
Vermeers,  including  the  ones  already  mentioned 

58 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A VIEW  OF  DELFT  FROM  THE  ROTTERDAM 

CANAL 


Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 


scape  is  by  Vermeer  or  not  N**  t'r  • '«  «:  ar 

style  of  composition  is  not  •>  oi  n Ins  uv  ~ 
scape  arrangement  as  it  is  ti  t r.gnre  -'oik. 

To  go  back  a moment-*- it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  after  the  ■ tno  of  Delft,  be  next  two 
Vermeers  that  Burger-Thoib  saw  were  ihe  Milk- 
woman and  the  House  in  Deify  or.  r c is  iv» 

T1J3Q  30  333M5I3V  HAt 


MAQH3TTOH  3HT 


1/0 

JAVTAD 


T3J3G  30 


V/3IV  A 

■eora. 


huoaH  shT  .yshjjaD  hhutoi'I  jayoH 

’48  and  was  forced  1 ’ ranee.  rUa  gave 

him  a chance  to  r • "-■*  gaib  ries  of  Europe 


with  great  th^p  ' ■ 

The  next  two  V < -miner*  which  he  discovered 

collection  and  t certs.  College  in  the  Cabinet*  of 
M.  Suermondt;  this  latter,  alas,  is  not  now  cor- 
nered to  be  b>  Vermeer,  though’  Bi  rger  horc 

says  it  is  " delicious. 

Bv  i860  Burger  was  able  to  mention.  in  his 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


and  also  the  Lace-Maker , now  in  the  Louvre,  the 
Coquette  of  the  Brunswick  Gallery,  the  Reader  of 
the  Dresden  Gallery,  and  the  Courtesan  of  the 
same  gallery. 

Burger  not  only  discovered  many  Vermeers, 
hidden  in  the  galleries  of  Cologne,  Brunswick, 
Berlin,  Dresden  and  Vienna,  he  did  more.  He 
had  so  far  the  courage  of  his  convictions  that  he 
bought  several  and  persuaded  his  friends  to  buy 
others.  One  feels  as  one  does  in  reading  Bal- 
zac’s “Cousin  Pons,”  that  it  must  have  been  good 
to  live  in  those  times,  when  birds  of  such  a 
feather  were  on  every  bush. 

Among  the  pictures  which  Burger  acquired  was 
an  Old  Woman  with  a Reel.  This  was  offered  to 
the  National  Gallery  for  £157. 10s  but  was  de- 
clined. Burger  then  bought  it  himself,  but  resold 
it  to  an  English  dealer,  since  when  it  has  disap- 
peared. 

But  the  prize  of  his  collection  was  the  Young 
Lady  with  the  Pearl  Necklace , now  at  the  Kaiser 
Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin.  This  picture  will 
presently  be  described;  it  is  one  of  the  most 
purely  beautiful  pictures  ever  painted. 

Burger  also  owned  the  Young  Lady  at  the  Vir- 
ginals, which  is  now  in  the  National  Gallery,  as 

59 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

well  as  another  Young  Lady  at  a Spinet , which  is 
also  now  owned  in  London.  Burger  at  one  time 
also  owned  the  excellent  little  Vermeer  which  is 
now  in  the  Gardner  Collection. 

Having  got  his  subject  well  in  hand,  Burger 
published,  in  1866,  a series  of  articles  about  Ver- 
meer in  the  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts , and  this  series 
may  be  said  to  have  begun  Vermeer’s  modern 
vogue.  It  must  be  remembered  that  he  was  not 
really  absolutely  forgotten.  Certain  very  well 
informed  men  knew  of  some  of  his  pictures. 

A.  Paillet  and  H.  Delaroche,  writing  of  a sale 
in  Paris,  1809,  in  regard  to  the  picture  now  called 
the  Reader  of  the  Ryjks  Museum  in  Amsterdam, 
say:  “This  production,  although  very  simple  is 
remarkable  for  the  naive  expression  of  the  face 
and  the  effect  of  light  — a usual  merit  of  this 
painter.” 

At  the  Sale  Lapeyriere,  Paris,  1817,  M.  Peri- 
gnon  says:  “The  pictures  of  this  artist  are  ex- 
tremely rare  and  sought  after.” 

So  that  it  is  wrong  to  say  that  our  painter  was 
absolutely  forgotten  in  the  minds  of  all  men. 
But  he  was  practically  forgotten.  It  was  no  dis- 
grace for  a man  of  culture  not  to  have  heard  of 
him.  Indeed,  since  beginning  to  write  this  book 

60 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


the  writer  has  been  asked  by  a number  of  excel- 
lent people  who  Vermeer  of  Delft  might  be. 

The  curious  thing  about  Vermeer  is  that  though 
he  was  presently  to  be  so  well  forgotten,  he  was, 
in  his  own  day  and  generation,  an  important  man, 
— a well-known  artist  and,  as  modern  writers 
love  to  say,  a prominent  citizen  of  Delft.  His 
pictures  were  admired  and  brought  good  prices; 
indeed,  with  the  exception  of  Gerard  Dou’s  work, 
they  seem  to  have  commanded  higher  prices  than 
the  work  of  other  men. 

These  things  we  know  from  various  sources.  A 
certain  Dirck  van  Bleyswyck  conceived  the  idea 
of  writing  of  the  glories  of  Delft  in  some  thou- 
sand of  pages.  This  he  did,  and  in  this  book  we 
find  the  name  of  Jan  Vermeer,  although  the  lat- 
ter was,  at  the  time  of  writing,  still  a very  young 
man.  Again,  Van  Bleyswyck’s  publisher,  Arnold 
Bon,  felt  called  upon,  at  the  death  of  Karel  Fa- 
britius,  to  write  a poem  deploring  his  loss.  In 
this  poem  he  refers  to  Vermeer  as  a phoenix  who, 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  Fabritius,  rose,  as  it  were, 
from  the  flames  of  the  exploding  powder  maga- 
zine to  continue  his  work.  For  the  unfortunate 
Fabritius  had  been  blown  up  while  painting,  by 

61 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

it  is  a rather  humiliating  proof  of  the  value 
of  reclame , and  of  man’s  indifference  to  good 
work  unless  his  attention  be  directed  to  it,  that 
this  latter  omission  ended  Vermeer.  He  simply- 
dropped  into  oblivion.  One  would  have  sup- 
posed that  the  mere  virtue  of  his  pictures  would 
have  commanded  attention;  and  in  a measure  it 
did.  For  whenever  these  pictures  appeared  at  a 
sale  they  almost  invariably  commanded  good 
prices,  although  by  a little  known  man. 

But  a reputation  cannot  be  built  up  by  a few 
sales.  A reputation  is  made  because  one  man,  in 
print,  says  another  man  is  good;  or  nowadays, 
when  he  says  he  himself  is  good,  as  did  Whistler. 
But  Houbraken,  maliciously  or  no,  had  omitted 
to  whisper  the  open  sesame,  and  the  hall  of  fame 
was  closed  to  Vermeer. 

It  is  humiliating  to  find  that  most  writers  on 
art  do  not  form  their  opinions  at  first  hand  but 
from  reading  the  works  of  other  men,  who  doubt- 
less knew  no  more  than  they.  All  the  other 
writers  on  art  industriously  copied  Houbraken,  at 
great  loss,  one  would  think,  of  ink  and  paper, 
since  they  wrote  nothing  new.  The  discursive 
Campo  Weyermann,  prolix  to  boredom  about 
nonentities,  remains  blankly  silent  about  the 

64 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


greatest  painter  who  had  lived.  A certain  Van 
Goll  consumed  an  enormous  number  of  pages  in 
leaving  out  Vermeer. 

Since  the  cognoscenti  had  forgotten  Vermeer,  it 
became  necessary  to  attribute  his  pictures  to 
some  one  else.  It  was  a sort  of  amiable  parti- 
tion of  Poland.  One  cannot  blame  the  admirable 
gentlemen  who  blandly  gave  one  Vermeer  to 
Rembrandt,  another  to  Terburg  and  yet  a third 
to  De  Hooch.  It  was  a partition  of  No 
Man’s  Land.  How  could  they  be  expected  to 
suspect  a great  painter  since  they  could  not 
read  his  name  in  a book?  A number  of  the 
pictures  were  signed  and  so  could  not  be  at- 
tributed to  Rembrandt  et  alii;  but  our  con- 
noisseurs invented  a subtle  form  of  torture  for 
poor  Vermeer’s  shade  by  attributing  these  to  other 
Vermeers  of  other  cities.  There  were  the  Ver- 
meers, father  and  son,  of  Haarlem.  There  was 
a certain  Vermeer  of  Schoonhoven  who  lived  in 
Utrecht  — a worthy  man  who  also  was  not 
only  a common  councilman,  but  peddled  out  ship 
licenses. 

It  is  true  that  the  work  of  these  good  men  did 
not  in  any  way  resemble  the  pictures  of  the 
**  Sphinx  of  Delft.”  None  the  less,  their  names 

65 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

received  what  weak  adulation  was  still  paid  to 
the  eidolons  of  Vermeer. 

Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  in  his  notes  of  a Journey 
to  Flanders  and  Holland  speaks  of  seeing  in  “the 
Cabinet  of  Mr.  Le  Brun”  among  other  things 
“A  Woman  pouring  milk  from  one  vessel  to  an- 
other” by  D (sic)  Vandermeere.  Apparently  he 
was  not  greatly  impressed,  for  later  he  volun- 
teers this  information:  “The  most  considerable  of 
the  Dutch  School  are  Rembrandt,  Teniers,  Jan 
Steen,  Ostade,  Brouwer,  Gerard  Dow,  Mieris, 
Metzu  and  Terburg.  These  excel  in  small  con- 
versations.” Vermeer  was  again  forgot! 

Biirger-Thore  has  the  credit,  and  rightly  so,  of 
exhuming  poor  Vermeer  from  the  ash  bin,  so  to 
say,  of  Houbraken’s  neglect.  He  reconstituted 
him,  rebuilt  his  reputation.  At  the  same  time  it 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  Maxime  Du  Camp 
had  written  in  praise  of  him  so  far  back  as  1857 
in  the  Revue  de  Paris.  Later  Paul  Mantz  in  the 
Gazette  des  Beaux-Arts  and  Theophile  Gautier 
in  the  Moniteur  had  found  admirable  words  to 
say. 

But  after  all  it  was  Biirger-Thore  who  at  the 
last  literally  patched  together  the  scattered  shreds 
of  reputation  of  a great  man;  who  scoured  Eu- 

66 


Artist  unknown.  ( Formerly  attributed  to  Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft;  probably  by  Michiel  Sweerts ) 

THE  LESSON 

National  Gallery,  London 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


rope  to  find  forgotten  works  by  him,  and  who  in 
the  end  did,  to  use  the  homely  phrase,  make  a 
new  man  of  him. 

The  most  cruel  part  of  the  neglect  of  Vermeer 
is  that  his  pictures  suffered  even  more  than  his 
reputation.  If  a man  owned  a Terburg  he  took 
good  care  of  it.  It  was  a name;  it  meant  some- 
thing — it  even  meant  money.  But  pictures  by 
an  unknown  artist,  by  Vermeer  in  short,  meant 
simply  nothing.  They  were  neglected;  it  is  only 
too  probable  that  they  were  sometimes  destroyed. 
Only  an  artist  can  realise  the  cynical  contempt 
that  is  felt  for  any  picture  that  has  not  a name 
and  a reputation.  Pictures  are  put  in  obscure 
corners  of  dark  garrets  — things  are  leaned 
against  them  — a hole  is  made  and  then  — the 
dust  heap  and  finis. 

It  is  sickening  to  think  how  many  Vermeers 
have  probably  actually  been  destroyed  just  be- 
cause Houbraken  chose  to  leave  out  the  “ Delft- 
sche’s  ” name  from  his  precious  book.  It  gives 
one  a new  sense  of  the  responsibility  of  the  his- 
torian. 

It  is  likely  enough  that  Houbraken  was  quite 
genuine  in  his  dislike  for  Vermeer’s  work.  He 

67 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

had  studied  in  the  school  of  Rembrandt  — of 
Rembrandt  the  direct  antithesis  of  Vermeer. 
Doubtless  he  really  disliked  the  work  of  Vermeer 
because  it  was  smooth,  correct  and  studied. 

This,  however,  does  not  make  it  any  more  en- 
durable that  he  should  have  started  the  con- 
spiracy of  silence  that  for  two  centuries  ruined 
Vermeer.  The  wrong  is  done,  though,  and  we 
can  only  regret  it  and  admire  the  masterpieces 
of  the  great  unknown. 

This  story  of  Vermeer,  however,  gives  us  pause. 
It  makes  us  stop  and  wonder  how  many  other 
good  men  have  been  wholly  forgotten.  It  is  now 
the  fashion  to  sneer  at  mute  inglorious  Miltons, 
to  say  that  merit  will  always  find  recognition, 
that  a man  takes  his  proper  level.  Well,  here 
we  have  this  fact:  that  Vermeer,  in  many  ways 
the  most  accomplished  of  painters,  was  for  two 
hundred  years  practically  forgotten.  If  the  best 
of  painters  can  be  forgotten  simply  because  a 
criticaster,  if  one  may  coin  the  word,  ignores 
him,  what  is  one  to  say?  One  is  forced  to  be- 
lieve, however  unwillingly,  that  reputations  are 
largely  a matter  of  friendly  puffing  and  reclame. 

And  yet,  for  all  this,  there  is  something  fine  in 
the  thought  that,  despite  the  foolishness  and  neg- 

68 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


lect  of  men,  Vermeer’s  art  did  still  persist,  and 
at  length  win  its  way  to  fame  against  all  odds. 
To  be  sure,  it  needed  the  recognition  and  praise 
of  Biirger-Thore  to  come  to  its  own.  But  that 
was  as  a lighted  match  thrown  into  a smouldering 
pile;  it  will  start  up  the  whole  thing  into  fire  and 
flame.  Vermeer’s  pictures  were  there,  some  few 
still  identified;  the  View  of  Delft , the  Milkwoman , 
and  one  or  two  others  were  so  good  that  recog- 
nition was  in  the  end  inevitable. 

And  in  this  age  of  self  advertising  and  exploi- 
tation it  is  pleasant  to  think  of  works  winning 
recognition  in  the  end  simply  through  their  own 
beauty.  Vermeer’s  forgotten  dust  lay  peaceably 
enough  under  the  old  church  at  Delft;  but  there 
were  these  pictures  of  his,  neglected  or  ill-treated, 
but  still  there,  silently  beautiful  in  themselves, 
without  adventitious  aid  or  reclame  — shining,  as 
it  were,  with  an  interior  fire.  It  only  needed  the 
man  — a man  with  such  sympathy  and  enthu- 
siasm as  had  Biirger-Thore  — to  catch  the  fire 
they  had  to  give. 

It  is  a curious  irony  of  fate  that  the  painter  of 
all  others  who  loved  the  clear  crystalline  light  of 
day  and  painted  it  as  it  bathed  and  revealed  all 

6 9 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


things  in  a room,  — that  this  simple,  direct  man, 
apparently  quite  without  pose,  should  have  be- 
come the  most  mysterious  of  painters.  Rem- 
brandt, the  painter  of  mystery,  is  no  mystery  to 
us.  He  who  will  may  read  of  his  tiresome  or 
discreditable  doings.  But  Vermeer  — the  painter 
of  daylight  — is  engulfed  in  darkness.  We  know 
practically  nothing  of  him,  which  is  perhaps  well 
enough,  only  it  is  strange,  as  there  was  evidently 
nothing  mysterious  about  him.  They  say  a man 
can  best  hide  himself  from  men  in  a great  city. 
And  so  Vermeer  — going  his  ways  simply  enough 
in  the  good  town  of  Delft,  doing  his  duties  ap- 
parently as  head  man  of  the  Guild  and  father  of 
a family  — has  managed  to  remain  in  most  par- 
ticulars quite  unknown  to  us. 

Biirger-Thore  devoted  most  of  his  time  to  re- 
discovering lost  pictures  by  Vermeer.  He  did 
also,  however,  make  an  attempt  to  search  the 
archives  of  Delft  for  details  of  the  life  of  his 
hero.  The  librarian  of  the  archives  pretended 
that  he  could  find  nothing  worth  while,  and  the 
amiable  Burger  took  him  at  his  word,  and 
thought  that  nothing  good  could  come  from  that 
source.  Later,  however,  M.  Henry  Havard  man- 
aged to  get  at  the  archives,  which  happen  to 

70 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 

be  remarkably  full  and  well  made  out.  By  in- 
cessant study  of  the  records  he  and  his  coad- 
jutor M.  Obreen  were  able  to  find  a number  of 
interesting  details.  For  instance,  they  found  the 
record  of  Vermeer’s  birth  and  the  record  of  his 
marriage. 

We  find  this  record  of  his  birth  on  October 
3ist,  1632: 

“A  child  Joannis.  The  father  is  Reynier  son 
of  Jan.  The  mother,  Dingnum,  daughter  of  Bal- 
thazar: the  witnesses  are  Pieter  Brammer,  Jan 
son  of  Heyndrick,  and  Martha,  daughter  of 
Jan.” 

There  is  a biblical  directness  and  brevity  about 
this  which  is  refreshing. 

Later,  April  5th,  1653,  we  have  the  record  of 
our  Vermeer’s  marriage: 

“Johannes,  son  of  Reynier  Vermeer,  celibate, 
living  at  the  market  place  — to  Catharina  Bo- 
lenes,  maiden,  from  the  same  locality.” 

Also  at  the  Royal  Library  of  The  Hague  was 
discovered  the  “Masterbook”  of  the  Guild  of 
St.  Luke  of  Delft.  Here  was'  found  record  of 
Vermeer’s  joining  the  Guild,  on  the  29th  of  De- 
cember, 1653,  as  master  painter.  “And  for  the 
right  of  mastership  he  has  payed  1 florin,  four 

7i 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


sous  — still  owing  4 florins,  10  sous.”  “On  the 
24th  of  July  1656  he  has  payed  in  full.” 

In  1662  the  book  tells  us  that  Vermeer  was 
made  “head-man”  of  the  Guild.  This  position 
he  held  for  two  years.  Later,  in  1670  and  1671 
he  is  again  made  head  man. 

After  this  there  is  only  one  record  found  in  the 
archives  — the  last  a man  can  have;  for  on  De- 
cember 13th,  1675,  we  find  these  grim  words: 
“Jan  Vermeer,  artist  painter  — living  on  the 
old  long  dike,  (buried)  at  the  Old  Church.” 
Then  a marginal  note  tells  us  that  he  left  eight 
children,  — under  age. 

These  are  the  definite  things  we  know  of  Ver- 
meer and  we  know  nothing  more  of  importance. 

We  do  not  know  with  absolute  certainty  who 
was  the  master  of  Vermeer. 

Much  is  said  about  the  probable  influence  of 
Karel  Fabritius  on  Vermeer,  but  it  is  to  be 
doubted  if  this  were  very  great.  To  begin  with, 
the  technique  of  the  two  men  is  quite  different. 
That  of  Fabritius  is  rather  scrappy  and  casual, 
while  Vermeer’s  is,  without  exception,  thoughtful 
and  considered.  It  may  be  that  Fabritius  influ- 
enced Vermeer  in  effort  for  originality,  for  cer- 

72 


0 B B: 

Karel  Fabritius 

THE  GOLDFINCH 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 


' 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


tainly  Fabritius  was,  in  composition,  one  of 
the  most  original  of  the  Hollanders.  His  Gold- 
finch is  one  of  the  most  original  things  of  his 
time.  But  Fabritius’  composition,  for  all  its 

originality,  suggests  Rembrandtesque  as  well  as 
certain  Italian  influences,  while  Vermeer’s  suggests 
no  one  unless  it  be  the  Japanese.  After  all, 
what  Vermeer’s  art  has  to  tell  us  is  of  exquisitely 
subtle  values,  of  an  intuition  for  colour  values,  a 
certain  most  original  sense  of  arrangement  in  line, 
light  and  dark  and  balance  of  colour.  In  all  these 
things  Vermeer  is  absolutely  different  from  Fa- 
britius. 

It  is  very  easy  to  see  in  the  work  of  a man  so 
original  as  Velasquez  the  marked  influence,  first 
of  Herrera,  then  of  Pacheco,  and  later  of  El 
Greco.  But  it  is  quite  impossible  to  see  any  such 
marked  resemblance  between  the  work  of  Fabri- 
tius and  of  Vermeer.  About  all  one  can  say  is 
that  they  were  both  extremely  original  men,  but 
they  were  original  in  quite  different  ways. 

Indeed,  Vermeer’s  very  great  qualities  seem  to 
have  been  those  which  cannot  be  taught.  He 
evidently  had  been  grounded  in  the  solid  Dutch 
technique.  His  knowledge  of  light  and  shade 
doubtless  came  primarily  from  someone’s  sound 

73 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

in  the  Delft  records  — and  it  just  so  happens 
that  Bramer’s  technique  and  idiosyncrasies  are 
just  of  the  sort  which  would  have  fitted  him  to 
be  the  master  of  Vermeer.  He  had  travelled 
much  in  Italy  and  while  there  had  fallen  in  with 
Adam  Elzheimer,  whose  personality  had  much 
affected  him.  Later,  on  returning  to  Holland,  he 
had  become  the  friend  of  Rembrandt.  But  even 
before  meeting  Rembrandt,  he  had  become  a 
passionate  searcher  into  the  laws  of  light  and 
shade  — of  chiaroscuro , as  the  writers  of  an  older 
day  loved  to  call  it.  He  was  not  a painter  of 
the  first  rank,  but  his  pictures,  bathed  in  light 
and  air,  held  figures  of  a certain  distinction. 
Certainly  he  might  have  been  able  to  teach 
Vermeer  the  elements  of  his  art,  particularly  that 
matter  of  chiaroscuro  which  was  always  so  strong 
an  element  in  Vermeer’s  work. 

While  we  have  no  very  exact  data  about  who 
Vermeer’s  master  might  have  been,  we  do  know 
a good  deal  about  the  manner  in  which  he  was 
taught.  That  is,  we  know  something  of  the  way 
in  which  all  young  painters  in  Holland  between 
1620  and  1700  were  taught. 

Recent  researches  have  brought  to  light  many 

76 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


interesting  details  about  the  manner  of  teaching 
then  in  vogue.  Curiously  enough,  it  did  not  dif- 
fer very  much  from  the  methods  now  in  prac- 
tice. This  is  an  important  bit  of  news  for  the 
many  who  criticise  present  modes  of  teaching. 

To  begin  with,  the  young  student  drew  a good 
deal  from  “the  flat”;  that  is,  from  another  draw- 
ing or  from  an  engraving.  This  has  gone  out  of 
fashion  nowadays,  but  there  is  something  to  be 
said  for  it;  especially  if  the  designs  to  be  copied 
are  well  selected.  The  student  learns  a good 
deal  about  proportion  and  a simple  way  of  sug- 
gesting the  appearance  of  things,  before  he  is 
confronted  with  the  overpowering  detail  of  nature. 

Then  the  student  was  made  to  draw  for  some 
time  from  the  cast  — casts  made  from  the  an- 
tique and  also  hands,  feet  and  arms  cast  from  the 
living  model.  It  is  recorded  that  Rembrandt  had 
in  his  studio,  twenty  or  more  hands  cast  from 
nature.  These  were  among  many  other  casts 
which  he  kept  in  his  studio  for  the  use  of  his 
students.  The  young  artist  was  often  caused  to 
“draw  limbs  in  plaster  the  size  of  life  and  also 
larger.” 

We  know  this  detail,  that  the  cast  was  gener- 
ally studied,  from  the  many  paintings  and  en- 

77 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

gravings  which  exist,  representing  young  artists 
drawing  from  the  plaster.  There  is  one,  in  par- 
ticular, by  Metzu,  representing  a lady  in  the  act 
of  copying  a cast. 

There  was  a good  deal  of  drawing,  too,  from 
the  ecorche  or  anatomy-figure.  Again,  it  may  be 
said  that  it  is  a pity  that  this  is  not  done  more 
in  the  schools  at  the  present  day.  There  are 
many  modern  artists  who  have  but  the  vaguest 
idea  of  what  the  bones  and  muscles  in  an  arm 
may  be.  And  their  drawing  shows  it.  The  study 
of  anatomy  was  difficult  in  those  days  and  this 
difficulty  may  account,  in  part,  for  the  passion 
with  which  that  study  was  pursued.  It  is  re- 
corded that  Aert  Mytens,  an  artist  of  sorts,  cut 
down  a gallows  bird  and  carried  him  home  in  a 
sack  that  he  might  dissect  him. 

Perspective  was  also  studied  with  enthusiasm 
— chiefly  from  Albert  Diirer’s  treatise,  though 
later,  various  compendiums  were  written  by  other 
men. 

There  exist  two  very  interesting  pictures  by 
Sweerts.  One  represents  drawing  from  the  cast, 
the  other  students  working  from  the  life.  The 
latter,  except  for  the  antique  costumes  and  sur- 
roundings, looks  not  unlike  a modern  life-school. 

78 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


It  is  notable  in  this  connection,  that  while  the 
Dutch  seldom  treated  the  nude  in  art,  they  real- 
ised the  importance  of  its  study  in  the  making 
of  a draughtsman. 

The  chief  difference  from  a modern  school 
which  one  notices  in  this  picture  of  Sweerts  is 
the  extreme  youth  of  the  students.  They  look 
to  be  from  fifteen  to  sixteen  years  of  age.  Art- 
ists began  their  career  while  still  very  young  in 
those  days. 

The  young  artist  was  usually  apprenticed  to 
some  painter  of  importance.  Doubtless  Vermeer 
learned  his  trade  in  this  way.  There  was  quite 
a definite  and  fixed  form  of  apprenticeship,  prob- 
ably the  outcome  of  mediaeval  regulation. 

While  we  have  not  any  exact  record  of  Ver- 
meer’s student  days,  we  know  in  a general  way 
how  a young  artist  was  apprenticed.  He  was 
usually  bound  to  an  artist  for  a term  of  two 
years.  His  parents  or  guardians  paid  the  artist  a 
certain  sum  for  instruction  which  varied  in  dif- 
ferent cases.  We  know  that  Rembrandt,  Gerard 
Dou  and  Honthorst  had  a hundred  florins  a year 
for  a scholar.  Ferdinand  Van  Apshoven,  a lesser 
man,  had  the  equivalent  of  £3.145.  In  return  the 
artist  agreed  to  give  food,  lodging  and  instruc- 

79 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

tion  in  painting.  In  Rembrandt’s  house  each 
student  had  a room.  Others  were  not  always  so 
fortunate. 

The  artist  expected  the  student  to  make  copies 
for  him  and  to  work  on  accessories  in  the  mas- 
ter’s pictures.  The  student,  however,  was  gen- 
erally allowed  to  paint  one  picture  a year 
for  himself.  An  amusing  detail  in  these  con- 
tracts was  that  the  student’s  father  was  often 
required  to  bring  a yearly  present  of  a barrel  of 
herring. 

In  Michael  Mierevelts’  studio  in  Delft  the  stu- 
dents made  copies  of  his  work  which  he  signed 
as  by  himself.  This  was  not  considered  dishon- 
ourable in  those  days. 

Instruction  in  painting  usually  began  by  mak- 
ing the  young  artist  grind  the  colours,  clean  and 
“set”  palettes  and  stretch  canvases.  Great  stress 
was  laid  on  understanding  all  these  details  of  the 
art.  Artists  made  their  own  colours  and  ma- 
terials. And  it  was  not  till  1643  that  a fine-arts 
dealer,  Volmarijn  by  name,  opened  a shop  in 
Leyden  for  the  sale  of  “prepared  and  unprepared 
colours,  panels,  canvas  and  painting  utensils  of 
all  kinds.”  But  despite  shops  of  this  sort,  Dutch 
painters  for  the  most  part  continued  preparing 

80 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


their  own  materials  till  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

We  know  from  the  inventory  of  Vermeer’s  ef- 
fects that  he  had  a stone  table  for  mixing  colours. 
Presumably  he  had  a boy  — either  an  apprentice 
or  one  of  his  eight  children  — mixing  colour  most 
of  the  time.  That  stone  table  for  mixing  was  an 
institution  in  most  Dutch  studios. 

After  training  in  preparation  of  materials,  the 
student  was  finally  allowed  to  copy  a picture, 
usually  one  by  the  master  himself.  There  is  a 
good  deal  to  be  said  for  this  manner  of  instruc- 
tion, for  the  student  learned  good  habits  of 
painting,  — how  to  mix  tones,  how  to  lay  the 
paint  on,  what  means  to  take  to  avoid  “crack- 
ing,” — before  he  was  confronted  by  the  over- 
powering complexity  of  nature.  Of  course  it 
tended  to  make  the  student  paint  very  much  like 
his  master;  but  in  those  times  this  was  regarded 
as  a merit,  not  a defect  as  nowadays. 

Studios  varied  a good  deal  according  to  the 
means  of  the  artist.  The  poorer  sort  often  had 
merely  a large  room  with  a north  light.  The 
richer  artists  had  large  and  elaborately  furnished 
rooms.  Sometimes  the  windows  were  quite  hand- 
some as  regards  the  design  of  the  sashes,  and  a 

81 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


little  stained  glass  was  at  times  let  in.  Appar- 
ently the  floor  was  sometimes  of  tesselated  pave- 
ment. One  gets  an  idea  of  this  studio  of  the 
better  sort  from  Vermeer’s  painting  in  the  Czernin 
Gallery  — which  represents  an  artist  seated  com- 
fortably at  his  work  in  a studio  of  large  size 
and  of  some  pretension. 

The  materials  were  curiously  like  what  we  use 
now.  One  says  curiously  because,  when  we  think 
how  other  mechanical  arts  have  varied  and  for 
the  most  part  improved,  it  is  strange  to  think 
that  the  mechanics  of  painting  have  not  changed 
at  all  in  the  last  three  hundred  years.  A round 
palette  was  employed,  something  like  what  dear 
old  ladies  now  use  to  paint  with.  Rectangular 
palettes  were  entirely  unknown  and  unused;  nor 
yet  was  to  be  seen  the  “ Duran  ” palette  which 
modern  painters  often  use. 

The  Dutch  made  great  case  of  a spotlessly 
clean  palette.  Many  painters  nowadays  seem  to 
take  a sort  of  pride  in  having  their  palettes  in  a 
filthy  condition. 

They  also  took  great  pains  not  to  have  their 
work  get  dusty.  They  often  hung  a cloth  over 
a picture  when  they  were  not  painting  on  it,  in 
order  to  keep  the  dust  off. 

82 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

PORTRAIT  OF  A WOMAN 


Museum  of  Fixe  Arts,  Buda-Pesth 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


The  painters  of  those  days  had  no  godets  or 
oil  cups  as  we  call  them;  rather  they  had  a 
bowl  or  cup  of  the  “ medium  ” near  by  them 
and  used  it  as  they  saw  fit.  The  brushes,  mahl- 
sticks,  palette,  knife,  etc.,  were  much  as  we  have 
them  now  except  that  we  very  seldom  use  a 
mahl-stick  in  these  days. 

The  easels  were  more  primitive  than  what 
we  usually  employ;  that  is,  they  were  the 
ordinary  three-legged  variety.  Indeed,  as  far  as 
we  know,  the  upright  sort  did  not  then  exist. 
The  pictures  were  not  set  upright  as  we 
have  them  but  rather,  they  were  leaned  back 
at  an  angle  on  the  easel  more  as  we  arrange  a 
drawing. 

Every  artist  tried  to  collect  a mass  of  material 
which  could  be  used  in  his  pictures.  Thus,  we 
find,  in  the  inventory  of  Vermeer’s  possessions 
made  after  his  death,  mention  is  made  of  seven 
ells  of  gold  leather  hanging,  a landscape,  a sea 
piece  and  a large  picture  of  the  crucifixion.  All 
of  these  pictures  have  been  identified  in  one  or 
another  of  his  works. 

Of  Vermeer’s  life  from  day  to  day  we  know 
absolutely  nothing.  We  have  no  engaging  anec- 

83 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

dotes  of  his  idiosyncrasies,  none  of  those  sneering 
accounts  of  his  failings  by  which  mediocrity  tries 
to  console  itself  for  lack  of  talent.  Nor  have  we 

— and  this  is  more  important  — any  account  of 
what  his  technical  methods  were,  — of  what 
colours  he  used  or  how  he  laid  them  on.  Had 
those  days  been  as  now,  we  should  have  known 
all  about  him. 

We  should  have  pictures  of  Vermeer  at  the 
age  of  three,  Vermeer  at  sixteen  in  his  con- 
firmation suit,  Vermeer  at  twenty-three  at 
the  time  he  joined  the  Guild  of  St.  Luke. 
More,  we  should  have  interviews  with  him, 

— what  he  thought  about  questions  of  the 

day.  There  would  be  illustrations  — what  his 
front  door  looked  like,  the  artist  in  his  studio, 
the  artist  drinking  tea.  Our  rage  for  intru- 

sion — our  genius  for  impertinence  — would  be 
satisfied. 

And  yet  it  is  to  be  doubted  if  we  should  be  the 
gainers.  Something  of  the  charm  of  the  man  lies 
in  his  silence.  He  lived,  he  died,  and  nothing  is 
left  of  him  but  his  work.  But  that  is  everything. 
It  is  the  clear  quintessence  of  genius,  purged  of 
the  gross  lees  of  anecdotage  and  statistics.  Sim- 
ply these  works  remain,  the  best  he  could  do  — 

84 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


what  he  chiefly  lived  for  — the  expression  of  his 
best.  Thrice  happy  Vermeer!  Happy  like  those 
nations  whose  history  is  unwritten. 

The  only  thing  that  we  really  miss  and  what 
we  miss  of  almost  all  good  painters,  is  some  ac- 
count of  their  method.  Time  and  time  again 
great  painters  — Giorgione,  Da  Vinci,  Velasquez, 
Vermeer  — have  penetrated  the  inmost  temple  of 
art,  have  stood  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  have  heard 
the  Oracle  mutter  orphic  sayings,  have  divined 
the  master  word  and  then  have  come  out  into 
the  outer  world,  a baffling  smile  in  their  eyes  and 
no  word  on  their  lips.  They  would  not  tell;  did 
not  know  it  worth  the  telling.  They  were  too 
modest  to  tell. 

Of  course  no  man  can  tell  all  of  his  genius,  but 
he  can  describe  his  method.  And  the  method  of 
almost  all  very  great  painters  has  been  sound 
and  worth  the  knowing.  What  we  should  like  to 
know  of  Vermeer  is  what  light  meant  to  him; 
how  he  himself  regarded  it;  what  he  thought 
about  his  own  composition.  We  know  the  re- 
sults he  achieved,  but  we  should  like  to  know 
what  he  thought  of  them;  how  far  he  felt  satis- 
fied; just  what  he  felt  he  was  trying  to  do. 
We  should  like  to  know  whether  he  consciously 

85 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

tried  for  certain  merits  or  whether  they  came  to 
him  unconsciously. 

Then  there  are  lesser  things.  It  would  even  be 
interesting  to  know  what  colours  he  used.  In 
Velasquez’  case,  for  instance,  we  do  know  just 
that  because  his  gossipy  old  father-in-law  Pacheco 
took  the  trouble  to  tell  us.  But  of  Vermeer’s 
colours  we  know  nothing  except,  indeed,  the  evi- 
dences that  his  pictures  give  on  their  own  faces. 
We  can  guess  that  he  used  a sort  of  yellow  lake, 
and  probably  a red  lake  from  the  vicious  way  in 
which  it  has  acted,  but  that  is  rather  a sorry 
substitute  for  knowing  all  about  his  ideas  on 
colour. 

We  should  like  to  know  how  he  set  his  palette, 
and  how  he  went  about  a painting.  Indeed,  we 
do  know  a little  bit  about  this,  — or  we  think  we 
do.  In  the  Studio  the  painter  has  sometimes 
been  thought  to  be  Vermeer  himself.  Just  how 
this  can  be  is  difficult  to  reason  out  since  a man 
can  hardly  paint  the  back  of  his  head.  It  might 
indeed  be  managed  by  a complicated  arrangement 
of  mirrors,  but  in  that  case  it  would  be  hard  to 
achieve  such  crystalline  clearness  and  such  detail 
as  this  picture  has  to  show.  Besides,  we  can 
read  the  letters  on  the  maps  and  in  a mirror  they 

86 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 

would  have  a through-the-looking-glass  sort  of 
look. 

Still,  it  is  just  possible  that  this  painter  is 
painting  in  the  manner  of  Vermeer;  and  it  is 
evident,  from  the  way  he  is  going  to  work,  that 
he  means  to  paint  alia  prima.  That  is,  he  has 
drawn  in  his  quaint  little  subject  rather  carefully 
in  chalk  and  is  just  starting  in  to  paint  de  pre- 
mier coup  on  the  wreath.  This  should  be  rather 
a shock  to  those  who  hold  that  a picture  should 
be  messed  in  all  over  before  one  begins  to  paint 
the  details.  But,  after  all,  it  is  always  possible 
that  the  man  was  not  painting  in  the  manner  of 
Vermeer  at  all.  Still  it  would  seem  most  likely 
to  be  a student  or  a friend. 

One  of  the  things  which  astounds  one  in  the 
study  of  Vermeer’s  work  is  that  it  should  have 
been  so  often  mistaken  for  the  work  of  other 
men  — and  such  men!  It  is  not  difficult  to  un- 
derstand that  it  should  have  been  confused  with 
the  work  of  De  Hooch.  True,  their  colour  is 
very  different,  their  handling  is  absolutely  differ- 
ent, but  these  are  things  that  the  so-called  ex- 
pert, who  has  never  learned  to  paint,  can  hardly 
be  expected  to  notice  or  to  know  about.  Yet 

87 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

these  painters’  choice  of  subjects  was  somewhat 
alike.  Indeed,  it  is  supposed  by  some  that  the 
men  worked  side  by  side  for  some  time  and  it 
may  be  that  some  of  De  Hooch’s  paintings  were 
made  in  Vermeer’s  house.  In  one  of  the  De 
Hooch’s  in  the  Wallace  Collection,  the  famous 
lion’s  head  chair  appears  and  the  window  and 
floor  look  as  they  do  in  Vermeer.  The  treatment 
of  the  faces  and  hands,  however,  is  so  differ- 
ent that  it  is  hard  to  see  how  any  man  in  his 
senses  should  have  confused  the  two  painters. 

There  are  one  or  two  Metzus  which  are  alike 
in  subject  and  costume,  but  the  handling  is  en- 
tirely different.  In  Metzu  the  handling  is  always 
fused,  legato , so  to  say;  and  this  applies,  by  the 
way,  to  the  work  of  Terburg  and  of  De  Hooch 
as  well.  Vermeer,  on  the  other  hand,  was  often 
staccato.  He  was,  indeed,  among  the  first  to 
paint  in  a pointillist  way.  Some  of  his  pictures 
— notably  the  Milkwoman  — are  full  of  these 
minute  staccato  touches,  and  one  sees  the  same 
thing  to  a lesser  degree  in  the  Studio  of  Vienna, 
in  the  View  of  Delft , and  others.  This  is  only 
one  of  the  little  earmarks  that  help  us  to  dis- 
tinguish his  work  from  that  of  other  men. 

How  Vermeer’s  work  could  possibly  be  con- 

88 


1'ieter  de  Hooch 

INTERIOR,  WITH  WOMAN  AND  BOY 

Wallace  Collection,  London 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


fused  with  that  of  Jan  Steen  is  hard  to  see. 
Vermeer’s  painting  is  almost  invariably  laid  in 
with  the  square  touch.  Occasionally  this  is  car- 
ried to  an  extreme  as  in  the  Lace-Maker  and  the 
picture  at  the  Metropolitan  Museum.  Jan  Steen’s 
figures,  on  the  other  hand,  even  at  their  best,  are 
painted  in  a stringy,  sleazy  way,  quite  different 
from  the  rather  blocky  technique  of  the  other. 

Again,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any- 
thing of  Vermeer’s  could  have  been  attributed  to 
Rembrandt.  Vermeer’s  pictures  are  almost  al- 
ways cool  in  tone,  while  it  is  perhaps  safe  to  say 
that  Rembrandt  never  painted  a cool  picture  in 
his  life.  Again,  the  handling  is  quite  different. 
Rembrandt,  apparently,  laid  his  things  in  with  a 
round  brush,  without  much  regard  for  surface  or 
for  neatness  of  facture.  Vermeer,  on  the  other 
hand,  started  his  pictures  with  a square  brush, 
preserving  a smooth  surface  and  showing  great 
solicitude  for  workmanlike  handling.  When  one 
looks  at  the  W omans  Portrait  of  Buda-Pesth,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  it  should  ever  have  been  mis- 
taken for  a Rembrandt.  The  mere  painting  of 
the  ribbons  on  the  dress  is  quite  different  in  its 
square  brush  work  from  anything  that  Rem- 
brandt ever  did. 


89 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Brekelenkamp  and  Vermeer  have  been  con- 
fused in  one  or  two  instances.  Brekelenkamp  is 
not  as  well  known  as  he  should  be.  Still  he  is 
distinctly  a second  class  painter,  though  a very 
interesting  one.  His  colour  is  quite  different, 
but  beside  this  his  method  of  composition  and 
his  workmanship  are  not  at  all  like  Vermeer’s. 

Philip  de  Koninck,  Aart  de  Gelder,  Nicholas 
Koedijk  and  Jean  le  Due  are  names  which  one 
supposes  to  be  little  known  to  the  average  intel- 
ligent reader.  These  worthies  did,  each  in  his 
way,  interesting  work  — but  this  work  in  every  in- 
stance lacked  the  distinction  that  always  marked 
the  work  of  Vermeer.  Then,  of  course,  in  the 
case  of  each  man  the  handling  and  colour  qual- 
ity is  fatally  different. 

Philip  de  Koninck  painted  some  beautiful  land- 
scapes — and  in  Pater’s  charming  Imaginary  Por- 
trait of  Sebastian  Van  Storck  that  triste  dreamer 
is  described  as  having  four  landscapes  by  de 
Koninck.  But  it  is  hard  to  see  any  connection 
between  his  work  and  that  of  Vermeer,  though 
his  colour  was  cooler  than  that  of  his  master 
Rembrandt  — yet  withal  quite  different  from  the 
quality  of  Vermeer. 

As  to  Aart,  or  Arent,  de  Gelder  he  again  was 

90 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


one  of  the  numerous  pupils  of  Rembrandt.  Why 
poor  Vermeer  should  ever  have  been  confused 
with  him  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  art.  For 
while  we  admire  Vermeer’s  cold  severity  of  taste 
which  made  him  put  as  few  accessories  as  possi- 
ble into  his  pictures,  the  good  Arent,  on  the  other 
hand,  painted  in  a studio  that  looked  like  a 
pawnbroker’s  shop  — so  full  was  it  of  swords, 
banners  and  trumpets  hinting  at  “the  drums  and 
tramplings  of  a thousand  conquests.”  Moreover 
he  painted  historical  and  religious  subjects,  whereas 
we  shall  presently  see  that  our  Vermeer  painted 
but  few  of  these,  and  those  few  with  no  great 
credit  to  himself. 

Koedijk  is  not  so  hard  to  understand  because 
his  pictures  do  seem  rather  like  those  of  De 
Hooch.  To  be  sure,  De  Hooch  is  not  Vermeer, 
still  there  is  enough  similarity  between  the  men 
to  explain  why  a distracted  critic,  at  his  wit’s 
ends,  should  attribute  a Vermeer  to  Koedijk  de- 
spite the  fact  that  in  technique,  colour  and  com- 
position they  are  quite  different. 

Jan  le  Due  again  hardly  reminds  one  of  Ver- 
meer — even  though  certain  worthies  have  con- 
fused one  with  the  other.  His  military  pictures, 
his  ruffling  Corps  de  Garde , his  shuffling  card 

9i 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

players,  hardly  suggest  the  quiet,  hushed  interiors 
of  Vermeer.  Still  less  do  his  cattle  pieces  sug- 
gest the  master  of  Delft.  The  imagination 
staggers  at  the  thought  of  Vermeer  painting  a 
cow. 

In  1749  the  catalogue  of  a Dutch  sale,  in  men- 
tioning one  of  Vermeer’s  pictures  says  of  it:  “As 
good  as  an  Eglon  Van  der  Neer.”  These  things, 
even  after  two  hundred  and  seventy  years  would 
make  one’s  blood  boil  if  they  were  not  so  funny. 

The  excellent  Eglon  — who  really  was  a very 
skilful  painter,  did,  indeed,  quite  successfully  imi- 
tate Terburg  and  Netscher.  Since  he  had  not 
read  about  Vermeer  it  doubtless  did  not  occur 
to  him  to  imitate  the  latter.  Still,  it  seems 
rather  hard  that  the  imitator  of  an  imitator 
should  be  accounted  better  than  one  of  the  few 
great  originals  among  painters. 

It  was  left  to  an  ingenious  engraver  to  attrib- 
ute Vermeer’s  Girl  Reading  of  the  Dresden  Mu- 
seum, to  Govaert  Flinck;  the  man  actually 
engraved  the  thing  — studied  it,  day  after  day, 
and  then  attributed  it  to  Flinck.  One  wonders 
why  he  did  not  attribute  it  to  Salvator  Rosa  and 
be  done  with  it.  Flinck  of  all  men,  with  his 
violent  Rembrandtesque  technique,  is  the  last 

92 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  ( Authenticity  not  established) 

PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  MAN 
M useum  of  Brussels 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 

artist  one  would  think  of  in  connection  with  Ver- 
meer. 

How  anyone  who  has  ever  studied  the  Isaac 
and  Jacob  of  the  Ryks  Museum  or  any  other  well 
known  Flinck  and  has  noted  the  peculiarities  of 
handling  can  attribute  a fine  picture  by  Vermeer, 
with  its  beautiful,  serene  technique  to  this  violent 
maker  of  pastiches , passes  belief  or  understanding. 

The  Head  of  a Man , of  the  Brussels  Museum, 
which  many  now  suppose  to  be  painted  by  Ver- 
meer, was  at  one  time  by  Dr.  Bredius  attributed 
to  Jan  Victoors. 

Jan  Victoors,  sometimes  called  Fictoor  or  Fic- 
toors,  was  a pupil  of  Rembrandt  and  painted  the 
usual  sort  of  Rembrandt  subject,  for  among  his 
pictures  we  find  The  Pork  Butcher , Tobias  Blessing 
His  Son , Tobias  Recovering  His  Sight , etc.  He 
has  the  usual  merits,  the  usual  defects  of  Rem- 
brandt’s pupils.  Doubtless  he  painted  a rather 
good  head,  but  doubtless  also  he  was  hardly  in 
Vermeer’s  rank  as  a painter. 

Just  why  any  picture  by  the  unfortunate  Ver- 
meer should  have  been  confused  with  either  of 
the  Mostaerts,  remains  veiled  in  obscurity. 
Neither  of  these  excellent  twins  was  a remarkable 
painter,  and  what  is  more  they  painted,  for  the 

93 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


most  part,  what  was  rather  uncommon  in  Hol- 
land, and  that  is  religious  pictures;  Christ  on  the 
Cross,  Ecce  Homo , and  pictures  of  that  sort.  Also, 
they  painted  a series  of  landscapes  illustrating  the 
twelve  months  of  the  year.  Neither  sort  of  sub- 
ject seems  to  be  characteristic  of  Vermeer. 
While  Vermeer  was  painting  May  it  would  have 
got  to  be  January.  Any  facility  was  not  in  his 
line. 

Biirger-Thore  in  striving  to  correct  the  unfor- 
tunate attributions  of  Vermeer’s  work  to  lesser 
men  fell  into  the  almost  equally  depressing  error 
of  attributing  the  work  of  lesser  men  to  Ver- 
meer. We  find  him  ascribing  various  works  to 
Vermeer  which  later  criticism  assigns  to  De  Witte 
or  Van  der  Neer.  Some  others  are  even  less 
known,  as  C.  A.  Renesse  or  Dirck  Jan  Van  der 
Laan.  The  thought  occurs  to  one  that  if  the 
work  of  these  men  was  good  enough  to  be  as- 
cribed to  Vermeer  it  must  have  been  pretty  good 
or  else  Burger  was  a poor  critic. 

De  Man  was  at  Delft  at  the  same  time  with 
Vermeer  and  doubtless  knew  him,  but  this  does 
not  seem  a valid  reason  for  Burger’s  attributing 
one  of  his  works  to  Vermeer.  His  travels  in  Italy 
had  given  his  work  a more  Italian  flavour  than 

94 


VERMEER  AND  HIS  TIMES 


had  most  of  the  other  men  — and  certainly  most 
of  his  works  do  not  suggest  Vermeer  at  all. 

The  subjects  of  Boursse  by  their  simplicity  might 
possibly  suggest  Vermeer,  but  they  have  none  of 
his  distinction  or  his  technical  skill  and  one  does 
not  know  what  Biirger-Thore  was  thinking  of 
when  he  attributed  one  of  his  timid  works  to  the 
prodigious  Vermeer.  Certainly  his  picture  in  the 
Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum  in  Berlin  has  a rather 
superficial  resemblance  to  Vermeer’s  House  in 
Delft.  But  when  one  comes  to  look  it  over  one 
sees  that  it  is  painted  in  quite  a different  way. 

De  Witte’s  sense  of  light  was  so  delicate  and 
charming  that  one  understands  Burger’s  mistake 
in  attributing  one  of  his  pictures  to  Vermeer.  One 
understands,  but  it  is  hard  to  forgive,  for  really 
there  is  not  the  slightest  connection  between  the 
two  men.  Some  of  De  Witte’s  church  interiors 
are  quite  beautiful.  But  there  is  really  no  anal- 
ogy between  these  and  Vermeer’s  works,  except 
that  both  kinds  are  painted  in  a rather  cool  high 
key.  The  figures  painted  by  the  two  men  are 
quite  different  in  every  way,  and  De  Witte’s 
edges  have  a hardness  which  Vermeer  avoided. 


95 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  VERMEER’S 
TECHNIQUE 


' 


CHAPTER  IV 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  VERMEER’S 
TECHNIQUE 

VERMEER’S  manner  of  painting  varied  some- 
what during  different  periods  of  his  life. 
The  Courtesan  or  Procuress , which  is  apparently 
the  earliest  of  his  known  works,  is  painted  with 
a rather  heavy  hand;  it  is  seemingly  quite  directly 
made,  — it  may  even  be  started  de  premier  coup. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  all  Vermeer’s  earlier  pic- 
tures are  more  heavily  and  perhaps  more  directly 
painted  than  are  his  later  ones. 

Various  of  his  later  works  seem  to  have  been 
painted  on  a canvas  prepared  with  blue,  or  it 
may  be  in  certain  instances  with  green.  There 
is  no  other  way  to  account  for  the  curious  bluish 
or  greenish  tonality  that  some  of  his  pictures 
have  taken  on.  Besides,  in  some  cases,  one  can 
see  the  ground  through  the  canvas.  These  things 
are  particularly  noticeable  in  the  Lady  at  the 
Virginals  of  the  National  Gallery  and  the  Wo- 
man at  the  Casement  of  the  Metropolitan  Mu- 

99 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


seum.  In  the  first  of  these  the  tonality  is  a dis- 
tinct green.  And  the  writer  well  remembers  the 
shock  he  experienced  on  first  seeing  it.  In  the 
Metropolitan  picture  the  general  tone  is  bluish, 
and,  while  one  is  well  aware  that  Vermeer  loved 
the  colour  blue  and  that  the  picture  is  conceived 
on  a blue  keynote,  still  it  would  almost  seem  that 
a blue  ground  does,  to  some  measure,  show 
through. 

He  apparently  used  some  sort  of  yellow  lake  — 
gamboge  possibly,  which  faded  away  to  a greater 
or  less  extent.  In  the  National  Gallery  picture 
it  is  also  evident  that  the  picture  has  been  mer- 
cilessly cleaned.  Someone  has  rubbed  and 
scrubbed  it  till  little  of  the  overpainting  remains. 

It  should  be  remarked  here,  that  pictures  by 
the  little  Dutch  masters  suffer  particularly  from 
the  cleaner.  It  was  the  Dutch  method  to  start 
the  picture  quite  solidly,  using,  for  the  most 
part,  opaque  colours  and  leaving  the  edges  fairly 
sharp.  Then  all  sorts  of  glazes  and  scumbles, 
principally  glazes,  were  used  to  bring  the  edges 
together  and  to  give  the  beautiful  rich  colour 
that  the  best  Dutch  pictures  possess. 

Many  picture  cleaners  have  a way  of  using  a 
solvent,  — often  alcohol  and  turpentine  mixed,  — 


ioo 


I 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

THE  PROCURESS,  OR  THE  COURTESAN 

The  Picture  Gallery,  Dresden 


fVN  YERMlv  4 OKI  ..FT 

In  the  first  of  J^e**^1*  tonality  is  a St- 
ock he  experienced  : t ' 

through. 

T3J3G  lO  513310X7  VIAL 

YJZ& THOO'J  3HT  HO  ^HHUOOOT  3HT 

cl  'T' 

HatreaaCI  ,y*3JJaQ  aauTort  shT 

part,  opaque  colours  and  leaving  the  eGg*$ 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 

to  clean  off  the  dirt  and  also  to  dissolve  the  var- 
nish which  may  have  been  laid  over  a dirty 
canvas.  The  picture  is  cleaned  with  little  wads 
of  absorbent  cotton  called  tampons , soaked  with 
the  cleaning  mixture;  and  the  utmost  skill  and 
intelligence  is  required  to  do  it  properly.  A 
modern  picture,  painted  directly,  without  glazes, 
may  be  cleaned  quite  successfully  by  this  proc- 
ess, but  when  it  comes  to  cleaning  a Dutch  pic- 
ture with  its  delicate  glazes,  one  doubts  if  the 
game  is  worth  the  candle.  One  has  seen  a fine 
Metzu  quite  ruined  by  a so-called  expert  who 
undertook  to  clean  it.  At  all  events,  certain  of 
Vermeer’s  pictures  have  been  greatly  injured  by 
stupid  cleaning. 

There  are  various  earmarks  of  Vermeer’s  tech- 
nique which  he  who  runs  may  read;  for  in- 
stance, a quality  not  unlike  the  famous  “square 
touch”  that  was  so  much  in  vogue  twenty  years 
ago.  This  is  particularly  noticeable  in  certain 
pictures  like  the  Lace-Maker  in  the  Louvre  and 
the  Woman  at  the  Casement  of  the  Metropolitan 
Museum,  but  one  gets  traces  of  it  in  nearly  all 
of  his  pictures.  For  instance,  the  ribbons  of  the 
Woman's  Portrait  of  Buda  Pesth  are  done  in  this 
manner,  so  much  so  that  one  wonders  how  any- 


IOI 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

one  ever  dreamed  of  attributing  it  to  Rembrandt. 
One  gets  glimpses  of  it,  too,  in  parts  of  the 
Studio  of  the  Czernin  Gallery,  and  in  the  Berlin 
Pearl  Necklace.  In  others  it  is  not  so  manifest. 
Yet  it  is  apparent  that  Vermeer  started  his  pic- 
tures in  this  way,  even  when  he  later  modelled 
them  into  more  rounded  forms.  Little  things  like 
this  may  seem  quite  unimportant,  yet  it  is  by 
the  study  of  little  things  that  we  are  able  to 
build  up  a conclusion  about  a man.  For  instance, 
Rembrandt  apparently  always  painted  with  a 
round  brush.  Certainly  his  pictures  have  that 
appearance.  And  this  is  one  of  the  many  reasons 
for  rejecting  Biirger-Thore’s  supposition  that  Rem- 
brandt was  the  master  of  Vermeer.  For  students 
are  most  apt  to  ape  little  tricks  of  the  master, 
— what  kind  of  brush  he  uses,  what  palette  he 
affects. 

Franz  Hals  also,  as  is  well  known,  used  the 
square  touch.  But  with  Hals  it  was  used  to  give 
brio  to  his  lights,  almost  always  laid  on  a well- 
modelled  surface,  — to  give  an  exaggerated  force  to 
the  high  light.  With  Vermeer,  it  was  the  quiet, 
careful,  studied  placing  of  one  flattish  plane  by 
another,  and  the  subsequent  brushing  of  the  edges 
together. 


102 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 

In  the  Lace-Maker  this  method  extends  even 
to  the  way  the  hair  is  painted  — the  fingers  and 
the  bits  of  coloured  silk.  One  notes  it  particu- 
larly in  the  fold  of  the  sleeve  of  the  girl’s  right 
arm.  It  is  this  quality,  among  other  things, 
which  gives  Vermeer  his  surprisingly  modern  look 
— for  that  method  of  handling  is  more  like  the 
moderns  than  it  is  like  most  of  the  old  Dutch- 
men. 

Vermeer,  however,  had  another  touch  which  he 
often  used  in  one  picture.  He  seems  to  have 

used  a small  round  brush  to  give  a succession 
of  staccato  touches  where  he  felt  the  need  of 
brilliancy  or  a suggestion  of  richness.  This 

technique  sometimes  appears  in  the  same  canvas 
with  his  square  touch  but  more  often  not.  He 
seems  to  have  used  it  most  in  his  early  period, 
or  perhaps  his  early  middle  period  would  be  more 
precise.  He  did,  however,  occasionally  use  it 
even  so  late  as  what  appears  to  be  his  latest 
known  picture,  the  Studio.  Here  most  of  the 
picture  is  made  with  a suave  touch.  But  he 

seems  to  have  felt  the  necessity  of  making  the 
pattern  in  the  curtain  more  brilliant  or  vibrant. 

This  touch  of  his  has  been  called  by  some 

writers  his  pointille  manner,  but  it  should  be 

103 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

remembered  that  the  so-called  pointillistes  are  a 
group  of  the  impressionists  who  made  pictures 
out  of  tiny  specks  of  pure  colour  juxtaposed  one 
against  another.  So  the  term  pointillist  has  come 
to  have  a very  definite  and  specific  meaning 
rather  more  circumscribed  than  its  original  sense 
— in  the  same  way  that  “impressionist”  has 
changed. 

Vermeer’s  round  touch  occurs  most  often,  it 
may  be,  in  his  picture  of  the  Milkwoman , which 
is  a comparatively  early  one.  And  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  he  used  it  most  on  accessories  such  as 
fruit,  bread,  dishes  or  the  tapestry  curtains  which 
he  was  fond  of  introducing  into  the  sides  of  his 
pictures.  There  is  a good  deal  of  this  round 
touch  in  his  View  of  Delft.  Here  it  occurs  in  the 
trees  across  the  river  and  seems  to  be  used  to 
suggest  the  glittering  lights  on  the  leaves. 

One  wonders  in  looking  at  this  particular  pic- 
ture whether  his  knowledge  of  optics  was  empir- 
ical or  theoretical.  At  all  events  he  seems  to 
have  divined  that  high  lights  on  the  trees  would 
be  round  — the  shape  of  the  sun  in  fact.  Un- 
fortunately we  have  no  studies  of  sunlight  by 
him.  It  would  be  interesting  to  note  whether 
in  painting  the  light-made  interstices  of  tree- 

104 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 

shadows  he  painted  them  round  also,  for  so  they 
appear. 

There  are  those  who  feel  that  because  Vermeer 
is  very  simple,  his  work  is  not  very  finished  or 
studied.  Or,  as  others  have  put  it,  because  ex- 
traneous detail  is  omitted  he  does  not  paint  na- 
ture just  as  she  appears.  But  one  should  put 

from  one’s  mind  the  idea  that  because  a man 
paints  on  a head  all  the  freckles,  the  hairs,  the 
wrinkles,  he  necessarily  paints  a head  just  as  it 
appears.  One  may  very  well  leave  out  in  so  do- 
ing, and  many  painters  do  so  leave  out,  the  ac- 
tion or  movement,  the  general  proportions,  the 
large  character,  the  light  and  shade,  the  right 
understanding  of  line,  the  larger  planes  of  model- 
ling. Indeed,  the  chief  object  of  teaching  art  is 
to  induce  the  simple-minded  beginner  to  attend 
to  these  things.  And  more,  there  are  those  who 
attend  to  all  these  things,  and  then  in  a measure 
having  gained  them,  begin  joyously  on  the  study 
of  eyelids,  leaving  out  the  intermediate  steps  of 
modelling. 

The  ideal  of  painting  — and  a somewhat  simi- 
lar idea  is  true  of  sculpture  — is  to  develop  the 
figure  from  large  things  to  small,  something  as  a 
photograph  is  developed.  Everyone  has  seen  a 

105 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

photographer  plunge  his  plate  into  the  bath  of 
“developer”  and  has  watched  the  image  appear 
faintly  and  vaguely  at  first,  lighter  and  more 
clear  as  each  moment  passes  till  at  the  exact 
second  when  things  are  of  the  right  clarity  the 
photographer  snatches  the  plate  from  the  bath. 
It  is  true  the  thing  appears  in  negative  but  the 
principle  of  progression  is  the  same. 

Now  the  right  painter  does  the  same  thing  in 
his  work.  And  one  sees  it  even  more  plainly  il- 
lustrated in  sculpture.  One  sees  a sculptor,  hav- 
ing made  his  little  maquette  or  model,  “point  up” 
the  statue  to  the  size  he  desires,  building  care- 
fully his  armature  or  framework,  getting  thought- 
fully the  right  proportion  of  the  head,  the  thorax, 
the  iliac  mass,  but  leaving  out  the  slightest  sug- 
gestion of  the  surface  of  things.  Then  one  sees 
him  fill  out  the  outline  — roughly  and  vaguely 
at  first,  more  definitely  as  time  goes  on.  The 
way  in  which  a sculptor  treats  an  eye  is  a good 
illustration  of  his  method.  In  modelling  in  clay 
a man  often  makes  the  general  shape  of  the  eye 
socket  first  and  then  fills  in  the  eyeball  and  other 
forms. 

Many  painters  proceed  in  almost  the  same 
way,  indicating  the  subject  rather  vaguely  at 

io  6 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 

first  and  gradually  sweeping  and  smearing  the 
paint  about  — “developing”  it,  as  it  were,  till 
the  final  result  is  achieved.  Others  prefer  to  se- 
cure the  action,  structure  and  general  outline  in 
drawing  and  then  put  on  the  paint;  but  always 
the  same  general  rule  is  observed  of  proceeding 
from  the  greater  things  to  the  less,  and  from 
them  to  the  smallest.  One  might  say  that  the 
greatest  things  should  first  be  attended  to,  then 
the  next  largest,  then  the  large  things,  then  the 
rather  large  things,  then  the  rather  small  matters, 
then  the  smaller  and  finally  the  smallest.  That 
is,  the  sequence  should  be  very  carefully  ob- 
served between  what  are  very  large  and  what  are 
rather  large,  between  what  are  rather  large  and 
what  are  rather  small,  and  so  on.  It  will  be  seen 
then  that  a man  may  secure  most  of  the  impor- 
tant qualities  of  painting  and  yet  leave  out  en- 
tirely wrinkles,  freckles,  wens,  eyelashes  and 
many  other  details  dear  to  the  beginner.  It  is 
this  that  makes  Greek  art  in  its  finest  manifes- 
tations the  truest  art,  and  yet  an  art,  to  the 
guileless  man  in  the  street,  not  true  at  all.  Some- 
thing of  this  sort  of  thing  may  be  said  of  Ver- 
meer. He  would  achieve  a miracle  of  design,  of 
finish,  of  light  and  shade,  and  yet  leave  out  the 

107 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


eyelashes.  It  is  not  that  he  could  not  see  them 
but  that,  having  carried  the  pictures  to  the  point 
he  had,  they  did  not  seem  to  him  particularly 
important.  Each  new  tone  that  an  artist  essays 
endangers  the  success  of  his  work,  and  he  may 
have  felt  that  having  secured  a certain  sense  of 
atmosphere  he  did  not  care  to  endanger  it  by  a 
few  eye-winkers. 

But  apart  from  this  it  is  true  that  in  treating 
the  eye  or  the  mouth  it  is  necessary  for  the  art- 
ist to  keep  the  shapes  a trifle  vague  in  order  to 
attain  the  look  of  mobility  which  these  forms 
have.  So  that,  doubtless,  Vermeer  in  making  forms 
like  these  consciously  avoided  too  much  definition. 

One  of  Vermeer’s  qualities  which  we  often  hear 
about  from  artists  is  his  manner  of  studying 
edges.  What  an  artist  calls  an  “edge”  is  where 
one  form  comes  against  another.  For  instance, 
where  a head  comes  against  the  background  is 
the  “edge.”  But  these  edges  constantly  vary 
according  to  conditions  of  light,  their  distance 
from  the  spectator  and  by  their  own  intrinsic 
sharpness  or  softness. 

To  take  a very  simple  example.  If  we  had  a 
white  cube  against  a grey  background  the  edge 

108 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


of  the  high  light  would  tell  very  sharply  against 
the  background,  the  edge  of  the  half  light  would 
tell  less  sharply,  while  the  edge  of  the  shadow, 
being  more  or  less  the  same  tone  as  the  back- 
ground, would,  as  it  were,  merge  into  it  and 
would  show  somewhat  blurred  against  it. 

If  we  had  a like  form  covered  with  plush  or 
some  fuzzy  material,  all  the  edges  would  be  more 
or  less  soft,  but  those  on  the  shadow  side  would 
be  softer  and  vaguer  than  those  on  the  light. 

From  this  we  can  get  a general  rule  that  when 
an  edge  is  very  different  in  value  from  the  tone 
immediately  behind  it,  it  shows  more  or  less 
sharp.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  the  difference  in 
tone  is  very  slight  the  edge  is  softer. 

All  this  seems  simple  enough,  and  yet  this 
question  of  “edges”  is  the  rock  on  which  many 
painters  have  split.  For  instance,  all  the  primi- 
tives made  the  edge  uniformly  sharp  and,  con- 
sequently, whatever  their  merits,  their  work  looks 
uniformly  hard.  Da  Vinci  was,  perhaps,  the  first 
man  to  study  “edges”  systematically.  Many  of 
his  followers,  and  still  more  the  followers  of  Cor- 
reggio, tended  to  make  the  “edge”  uniformly 
soft.  Possibly  to  some  extent  this  was  the  defect 
of  Rembrandt. 

109 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Vermeer,  of  all  painters,  seems  to  have  taken 
the  most  pains  about  getting  the  matter  right. 
He  evidently  spent  no  end  of  care  in  studying 
his  edges,  and  yet  the  result  is  neither  hard  nor 
soft,  but  something  a good  deal  like  the  appear- 
ance of  nature.  The  fact  is,  in  looking  at  nature 
— at  the  things  in  a room,  for  instance  — one 
does  not  think  of  them  as  either  hard  or  soft, 
except  in  so  far  as  hardness  or  softness  is  an  in- 
trinsic quality  of  the  thing  seen.  The  objects 
simply  look  like  themselves.  We  don’t  think 
about  the  edges  — we  simply  take  them  for 
granted.  But  in  looking  at  other  pictures  one 
constantly  hears  people  say  “too  hard,”  or  “how 
soft.”  Now  the  fact  that  one  notices  without 
conscious  study  that  an  edge  is  hard  or  soft, 
shows  that  it  must  be  wrong.  When  one  comes 
to  think  of  it,  one’s  impression  of  most  of  the  old 
masters  is  that  they  are  too  hard  or  too  soft. 
Van  Eyck,  Holbein,  Michaelangelo  one  thinks 
of  as  being  too  hard.  Correggio,  Murillo  and 
how  many  others  one  thinks  of  as  being  too 
soft. 

This  matter  of  edges  is  one  to  which  all  the 
Dutchmen  gave  great  attention;  and  so  it  hap- 
pens that  one  thinks  less  of  their  hardness  or 


i io 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 

softness  than  as  in  the  case  of  most  other  old 
masters.  They  simply  look  about  right. 

Yet  when  one  comes  to  compare  Vermeer  with 
the  very  best  of  the  little  Dutchmen,  as  those 
Dutch  painters  who  did  small  pictures  are  called, 
with  Terburg  and  with  Metzu,  for  instance,  one 
perceives  that  with  all  the  skill  of  these  latter, 
their  way  of  making  edges  was  more  mannered 
and  consciously  skilful  than  was  that  of  Vermeer. 
Terburg’s  Woman  with  the  Red-haired  Child  of  the 
Louvre  is  a wonderfully  skilful  performance.  Yet 
the  way  in  which  the  edges  of  the  child’s  red 
hair  are  merged  into  the  background  is  more 
noticeable  and  therefore  less  successful  than  the 
edges  in  parallel  cases  by  Vermeer. 

If  we  study  some  picture  by  Vermeer  in  which 
he  has  been  particularly  successful  technically  — 
for  instance,  the  Studio  of  the  Czernin  Gallery  — 
we  find  the  edges  at  first  sight  appearing  quite 
normal,  that  is,  we  don’t  notice  them  at  all. 
When,  however,  we  begin  to  study  the  matter, 
we  find  that  where  the  model’s  dress  comes  light 
against  the  equally  light  background  the  tones 
melt  together;  in  the  same  way,  where  the  sil- 
houette of  her  back  in  shadow  comes  against  the 
equally  dark  shadow  the  edge  is  quite  lost. 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

This  seems  quite  simple,  except  that  in  the 
work  of  the  unwary,  one  often  finds  such  edges 
left  perfectly  sharp. 

On  the  other  hand,  where  the  dark  shadow  of 
the  dress  comes  against  the  light  wall  Vermeer 
deliberately  lightens  the  tone  of  the  wall  as  it 
comes  into  juxtaposition  with  the  dress.  One  has 
only  to  look  over  the  picture  carefully  to  discover 
dozens  of  instances  of  this  sort.  At  first  sight  it 
seems  almost  a trivial  matter,  and  yet  it  is  one 
of  the  things  that  give  Vermeer  his  mastery  of 
light  and  makes  him  quite  distinct  from  most 
other  painters. 

A certain  very  brilliant  modern  painter  has 
laid  out  for  himself  a programme  of  attaining 
what  he  calls  the  crystalline  clarity  of  nature. 
When  we  look  about  a room,  he  maintains,  things 
do  not  look  cloudy  or  as  if  seen  through  a thick 
haze;  they  seem  clearly  defined  in  pellucid  air. 
Certainly  it  would  seem  as  if  Vermeer  saw  things 
that  way,  for  less  than  any  of  the  other  Dutch 
painters  does  he  deign  to  secure  atmosphere  or 
aerial  perspective  by  unduly  softening  the  edges 
of  things  far  back  or  out  of  focus.  He  puts 
things  in  place  by  studying  these  same  edges 

1 12 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

CHRIST  IN  THE  HOUSE 
Collection1  of  W.  A.  Coats, 


OF  MARY  AND  MARTHA 

Skelmorlie  Castle,  Scotland 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


very  carefully.  The  end  of  a map-stick  against 
a wall,  for  instance,  appears  in  one  of  his  pic- 
tures with  all  the  clearness  that  it  has  in  real 
life.  Yet,  somehow,  he  achieves  the  sense  that 
it  is  farther  back  than  the  principal  parts  of  the 
composition.  More  than  any  man  one  can  think 
of  he  has  managed  to  express  the  different 
“values,”  so  to  say,  of  different  edges.  He  has 
managed  to  make  things  “go  back”  as  artists 
say,  and  yet  to  express  his  sense  of  their  form 
and  solidity. 

This  matter  of  crystalline  clearness  is  more  dif- 
ficult than  at  first  appears.  Of  course,  it  is  easy 
enough  to  make  everything  defined  and  sharp  in 
the  room,  but  then  the  picture  has  the  look  which 
the  simple-minded  — a term  which  may  be  ap- 
plied to  those  not  expertly  versed  in  the  fine  arts 

— call  “hard.”  On  the  other  hand,  Rembrandt 
and  others  have  softened  edges  indiscriminately 

— swept  tones  together  till  the  room  has  a look 
which  the  layman  calls  “soft.”  This  is  agreeable 
enough,  but  one’s  mind  does  not  react  to  its 
truth.  One  has  a sense  of  a heavy  smoky  or 
misty  atmosphere  such  as  does  not  usually  obtain 
in  an  ordinary  room.  It  is  the  happy  medium 
between  these  two  sorts  which  Vermeer  has  set 

1*3 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


out  to  attain;  and  which,  in  the  main,  he  does 
attain.  De  Hooch  gets  something  of  it  too;  and 
so  does  Jannsens,  whom  the  cognoscenti  revile,  but 
who  painted  well  enough  to  make  people  think 
a certain  one  of  his  pictures  was  one  of  De 
Hooch’s  finest  works.  The  problem  is  excessively 
difficult.  One  does  want  the  distant  forms  and 
lines  to  take  their  place  — to  go  back  — and  this 
can  only  be  done  by  somewhat  modifying  the 
severity  of  their  sharpness.  At  the  same  time  it 
must  not  be  too  much  done,  or  a smoky  look  is 
produced. 

One  sometimes  hears  a modern  picture  of  an 
interior  criticised  because  it  is  too  “smooth”  in 
facture.  But  it  must  be  pointed  out  that  Ver- 
meer and,  indeed,  most  of  the  Dutch  painters,  ex- 
cept Rembrandt  and  his  pupils,  painted  smoothly. 
Even  Rembrandt  in  his  little  interiors  like  the 
Philosopher  at  the  Louvre  painted  smoothly  be- 
cause, forsooth,  there  was  no  other  way  of  ren- 
dering the  fine  detail.  It  is  true  that  Vermeer’s 
earliest  known  picture  the  Procuress  was  painted 
rather  heavily.  But  in  studying  the  making  of 
this  picture,  one  arrives  at  the  idea  that  this 
heaviness  comes  from  the  frequent  repainting  by 

114 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


a youth  who  was  not  wholly  sure  of  his  effect, 
rather  than  from  any  intentional,  wilful  loading 
of  the  light  such  as  occurs  in  certain  of  Rem- 
brandt’s pictures. 

As  Vermeer  grows  more  skilful  his  pictures 
grow  smoother  in  surface,  so  that  some  of  the 

latter  ones  are  extremely  smooth.  It  seems  evi- 

» 

dent  enough  that  this  smoothness  of  Vermeer  did 
not  arise  from  timidity,  or  any  liking  for  sleek 
things,  but  because  he  realised  that  things  are 
evident  through  a curtain  of  air,  — that  they  ap- 
pear to  us  through  and  by  the  lightness  or  dark- 
ness, the  warmth  or  coldness  of  the  colour  — its 
“saturation”  or  its  greyness;  and  not  in  paint- 
strokes  or  granulated  massings  of  pigment 

At  the  same  time,  though  Vermeer  kept  his 
surface  smooth,  he  always  managed  to  have  it 
interesting  and  agreeable  in  quality.  He  al- 

ways kept  it  looking  as  if  made  by  a sufficiently 
full  brush  — bien  nourri,  as  the  French  have  it. 
Certain  men  — and  great  artists  at  that,  like 
Ingres  — have,  in  making  their  surface  smooth, 
given  it  a mean,  impoverished  look.  The  colour 
looks  as  if  put  on  grudgingly  with  a skimpy 
brush,  whereas,  in  Vermeer’s  work,  one  always  has 
the  sense  of  a well-charged  brush,  however  delicate 

ii5 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

the  work  in  hand  may  be.  His  draperies  always 
look  as  if  made  by  a flowing  brush,  though  not  an 
overcharged  one.  Even  his  little  staccato  touches 
always  seem  made  by  a sufficiently  full  brush 
though  not  over  full.  As  far  as  one  can  judge  it 
does  not  appear  that  he  used  much  medium  for 
these  results;  rather  it  would  seem  that  he  had  a 
daily  amount  or  ration,  as  it  were,  ground  for 
him  by  his  colour  boy. 

These  freshly  mixed  tones  — doubtless  with  a 
good  deal  of  oil  in  them,  but  oil  carefully  mixed, 
not  scrabbled  in,  by  the  haphazard  chance  of  the 
palette  — enabled  him  to  work  over  and  over, 
• with  a good  deal  of  freedom  and  yet  smoothly. 
And  it  should  be  said  that  when  it  seemed  neces- 
sary, Vermeer  was  always  ready  to  imperil  his 
hard-won  smoothness.  That  is,  for  instance,  if 
he  felt  that  he  had  made  the  edge  of  a shadow 
rather  too  sharp,  instead  of  fuzzing  the  edges  to- 
gether, or  wiping  one  into  the  other  as  Metzu 
was  apt  to  do,  he  would  make  little  staccato 
touches  of  paint  — almost  stippling,  one  might 
say,  till  the  desired  vagueness  was  attained.  This 
required  his  making  these  touches  just  the  right 
colour;  and  also  in  less  skilful  hands  the  paint 
might  have  lumped  up. 

1 1 6 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


This  daily  mixing  up  of  the  paints  or  tones  re- 
quired was  one  of  the  real  “secrets  of  the  old 
masters.”  Instead  of  using  colours  out  of  a tube, 
colours  which  often  have  some  stiff  or  gummy 
base  as  wax  or  amber  to  make  them  keep  well,  a 
master  in  good  standing  always  had  a paint 
grinder  ready  at  hand  to  grind  or  re-grind  a 
little  colour  freshly  — just  so  much  as  was  need- 
ful for  the  day.  It  was  not  always  necessary  to 
grind  all  the  colours,  but  a fresh,  well-ground 
white  could  be  had  each  day.  In  this  way  the 
painter  was  able  to  have  in  his  colour  just  the 
amount  of  medium  required  for  the  particular 
task  in  hand,  and  to  have  it  well  ground  in  and 
perfectly  mixed.  Nowadays  it  is  often  impossible 
for  him  to  find  a white  of  the  consistency  that 
he  desires;  he  has  to  mess  in  a little  medium  in 
the  colour  while  on  the  palette  — and  the  tone, 
ill  mixed,  is  harder  to  manage  and  does  not  keep 
so  well. 

Vermeer,  as  has  been  hinted,  apparently  started 
his  pictures  by  laying  in  the  light  and  shade  very 
flat  — without,  at  first,  much  suggestion  of  mod- 
elling. One  gets  this  idea  because,  in  some  of 
his  pictures  he  does  not  seem  to  have  had  the 

117 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

time  or  he  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  highly 
finish  certain  parts.  These  parts  are  always  in- 
dicated very  simply  in  light  and  shade;  so  that 
it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  was  in  this 
manner  that  he  so  started  his  work. 

As  far  as  one  can  judge,  this  was  the  manner 
in  which  most  Dutch  painters  began  their  work. 
At  all  events,  Baron  Leys,  who  had  made  a deep 
study  of  the  work  of  Pieter  de  Hooch,  taught 
very  much  the  same  system  to  his  pupils  in  Ant- 
werp and  gave  them  to  understand  that  this  was 
the  method  of  the  Dutch  masters. 

Certainly,  some  of  Vermeer’s  less  complete 
works  have  the  air  of  being  done  by  a method, 
some  sound  method,  taught  him  by  another  man. 
It  is  when  his  pictures  are  carried  further  that 
one  gets  the  true  Vermeer  quality  — the  incom- 
municable something  which  no  one  else  could 
teach  him.  What  was  at  the  base  of  the  Dutch 
school,  what  produced  so  very  many  painters  of 
more  than  ordinary  excellence,  was  the  very 
thorough  and  thought-out  training  which  the 
young  artist  received  in  the  rudiments  or  funda- 
mentals. 

For  it  is  worth  noting  that  Dutch  art,  far  from 
being  naif  or  guileless  was,  in  reality,  extremely 

1 18 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


sophisticated.  The  vision  was  naif , but  the  means 
of  realising  it  were  very  scientific  and  well  thought 
out. 

There  never  lived  a race  of  men  who  under- 
stood  more  about  realising  the  vision  before  them. 
They  not  only  understood  the  fundamentals,  but 
had  every  trick  and  subterfuge  of  rendering  at 
their  fingers’  ends.  Almost  every  modern  clever- 
ness was  practised  by  them  or  by  their  neigh- 
bours the  Belgians. 

It  is  by  studying  Vermeer  that  one  perceives 
the  ruse  character  of  most  of  his  contemporaries. 
For  instance,  Metzu  had  a way  of  wiping  the 
edge  of  a half  light  into  that  of  a half  light  some- 
what darker  — a harmless  little  subterfuge  per- 
haps and  one  which  looks  excessively  clever,  yet 
keeps  the  picture  from  having  that  last  touch 
of  nature  which  a closer  observance  of  just  the 
form  and  colour  of  the  half  light  would  have 
given.  In  a parallel  case  Vermeer  might  have 
put  a number  of  his  round  minute  greyish  touches 
along  the  edges  of  the  two  half  lights. 

Another  very  able  painter,  Gerard  Terburg, 
permitted  himself  to  make  the  lights  a trifle  too 
flat.  At  least,  that  is  the  impression  one  gets  in 
looking  over  his  picture  of  Two  Women  and  a 

119 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Serving  Boy  at  the  Louvre.  The  heads  tell  al- 
most like  little  wafers  or  placques  against  the 
simplified  background.  The  effect,  too,  is  very 
pleasant;  except  that  when  one  analyses  it  one 
perceives  that  it  is  not  wholly  just. 

Neither  Metzu  nor  Terburg  was  above  a sum- 
mary changing  of  values  when  it  suited  their 
book.  For  instance,  in  Metzu’s  fine  Woman  and 
Money-lender  of  the  Boston  Art  Museum,  one 
notes  that  the  papers  close  to  the  window,  which 
certainly  ought  to  be  the  lightest  thing  in  the 
picture,  are  “kept  down”  or  made  darker  in  re- 
lation to  the  white  spots  around  the  heads  or 
hands.  Many  painters  would  defend  this,  and 
this  is  not  the  place  to  argue  the  matter.  Only 
one  points  out  that  it  is  a sophisticated  evasion, 
and  that  Vermeer,  for  instance,  did  not  commit 
that  particular  sort  of  fault. 

Vermeer’s  modelling  is  of  course  excellent,  as 
has  been  the  modelling  of  all  great  painters.  But 
it  is  so  elusive  that  it  is  hard  to  put  one’s  finger 
on  its  peculiarities.  When  at  its  best  it  simply 
looks  about  right.  The  manner  of  modelling  of 
certain  other  great  masters  is  easier  to  trace.  In 
Velasquez’  work,  for  instance,  one  can  note  quite 


120 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


well  the  sweeping  brush  work  with  which  he  en- 
veloped a head  and  worked  from  the  shadow 
toward  the  high  light;  and  also  how  in  finishing 
he  seems  to  have  worked  back  from  the  high 
lights  outward  into  the  half  lights,  smearing  them, 
as  it  were,  into  and  over  the  already  rendered 
half  lights. 

In  Da  Vinci’s  works,  despite  their  high  finish, 
one  can  get  some  idea  of  how  he  may  have  car- 
ried the  light  in  modelling  across  the  surface  of 
the  figure. 

It  may  be  that  his  drawings  give  us  some  idea 
of  his  method  of  attack,  of  his  science  of  render- 
ing. 

But  with  Vermeer  — especially  in  his  master- 
pieces — it  is  very  difficult  to  see  how  the  thing 
is  done.  It  is  simply  there;  there  is  very  little 
of  brush  work  or  obvious  rendering  to  give  one 
an  idea  of  how  the  trick  was  turned.  The  things 
are  there;  it  is  part  of  his  art  to  conceal  its  man- 
ner of  making. 

Still,  from  studying  all  his  pictures,  not  only 
the  more  highly  finished  ones,  but  those  that  are 
less  finished,  one  gets  some  idea  of  how  he  went 
to  work.  Evidently  he  had  been  taught  by  some 
good  master  to  lay  the  thing  in  quite  summarily 


I 2 I 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

in  light  and  shade.  Apparently,  then,  when  he 
was  able  to  carry  a thing  further,  he  studied  out 
the  shadows  pretty  carefully,  rendering  with  great 
exactness  the  differences  between  the  accents,  the 
reflected  lights  and  the  general  shadows.  Then 
he  seems  to  have  smeared  up  from  the  edge  of 
the  shadow  into  the  broad  light.  This  is  at  least 
the  way  the  hand  of  the  painter  in  the  Studio 
appears  to  be  done. 

In  some  cases  he  seems  to  have  been  content 
to  turn  the  edge  of  the  shadow  into  light  without 
going  much  further,  for  instance,  in  the  Love  Let- 
ter of  the  Rijks  Museum  where  the  face  of  the 
lady  and  the  arm  of  the  servant  are  done  in  this 
way.  He  seems  always  to  have  thought  more, 
in  a general  way,  about  getting  the  object  round 
looking  than  of  rendering  the  individual  planes 
too  carefully.  Note  in  this  connection  the  face 
of  the  Lady  at  the  Virginals  in  the  National 
Gallery.  In  the  Pearl  Necklace  of  the  Berlin 
Gallery,  the  modelling  of  the  lights  seems  carried 
further  and  the  form  is  more  absolutely  rendered. 
In  the  Dresden  Letter , which  is  the  same  sort 
of  picture  only  apparently  painted  at  some  earlier 
time,  the  modelling  is  carried  even  further,  being 
quite  intense  on  the  head  and  hands. 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


Perhaps  the  Head  of  a Young  Girl  in  the  Hague 
Museum  is  the  finest  piece  of  modelling  we  have 
by  Vermeer.  Here  the  turn  from  the  shadow  of 
the  cheek  into  the  light,  the  modulations  of  the 
mouth,  — the  gradation  of  the  half  light  on  the 
nose  are  simply  wonderful  — there  is  no  other 
word  for  it.  In  its  sense  of  light  and  shade  it  is 
one  of  the  finest  heads  ever  done.  Yet  even  here, 
one  feels  it  is  modelled  from  a sense  of  round- 
ness, that  the  sentiment  for  the  planes  of  the 
head  is  not  very  strong. 

In  some  of  the  earlier  pictures  like  the  Milk- 
woman , the  modelling  is  much  more  marked, 
less  subtle  than  in  various  of  the  later  ones,  while 
in  the  Lace-Maker  the  modelling  is  possibly  done 
more  by  planes,  especially  the  hands.  Still  this 
seems  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule. 

While  painting,  Vermeer  sat  at  the  easel  in- 
stead of  standing,  as  most  modern  painters  do. 
We  should  guess  this  from  the  fact  that  most 
Dutch  painters  did  so.  One  does  not  recall  a 
single  picture  of  a Dutch  artist  standing  as  he 
painted.  Doubtless  Hals,  Van  der  Heist  and  other 
painters  of  archers  and  corporation  pictures  did 
stand  to  their  work;  there  was  really  no  other 

123 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

way  to  do  it.  But  it  is  quite  apparent  that  most 
Dutch  genre  painters  sat  at  their  work. 

The  way  that  we  know  Vermeer  sat  at  his 
painting  is  curiously  simple  and  yet  quite  con- 
clusive. From  the  perspective  of  the  wall  and 
window  of  many  of  his  little  interiors  we  find 
that  the  horizon  line  would  come  a little  below 
the  shoulder  of  a standing  figure  or  about  at  a 
level  of  the  head  of  a seated  figure  — this  shows 
that  the  artist  himself  was  seated;  for  had  he 
been  standing  the  horizon  line  would  naturally 
come  at  the  height  of  a man  standing.  Of  course 
the  term  horizon  line  is  here  used  in  its  technical 
perspective  sense,  of  being  the  imaginary  hori- 
zontal line  on  which  the  vanishing  point  is 
placed. 

The  matter  of  whether  an  artist  sits  or  stands 
at  his  work  may  seem  of  minor  interest,  but  it  is 
really  quite  important.  Most  moderns  stand  at 
their  work;  as  we  have  said,  many  of  the  Dutch- 
men sat;  and  it  would  seem  that  many  of  the 
differences  between  modern  and  ancient  art  may 
be  traced  to  this.  The  best  modern  art  is  apt 
to  be  strong  in  values  — the  large  notes  well  seen 
and  recorded  but  the  lesser  transitions  often 
rather  slighted:  things  are  rendered  strongly  but 

124 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

LADY  WITH  A LUTE 

Collection  of  Mrs.  Henry  E.  Huntingdon,  New  York. 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


rather  abruptly  and  petulantly.  In  Dutch  art  — 
in  Vermeer  for  instance  — the  values  are  appar- 
ently well  enough  seen;  but  things  are  brought  into 
unity  by  an  effort  of  intelligence  rather  than  by 
merely  dabbing  on  the  notes  about  right  in  re- 
lation one  with  another.  The  transitions  and 
modulations  of  things  are  beautifully  studied  as 
by  a man  who,  well  planted,  possessed  his  soul 
in  quietude  instead  of  walking  about  the  studio. 
The  rendering  is  suave  and  serene,  with  no  appar- 
ent effort  at  strength  for  the  sake  of  looking 
strong. 

What  particularly  impresses  us  with  things  like 
Vermeer’s  maps,  for  instance,  his  lions’  heads  and 
his  picture  frames,  is  that  they  are  rendered  with 
infinite  study  and  care  — not  by  running  forward 
and  back,  putting  on  a touch  here,  a touch  there, 
till  a general  effect  has  been  obtained,  but  by 
working  all  over  the  thing  from  one  end  to  the 
other,  noting  every  detail,  each  subtlest  gradation, 
and  rendering  each  with  the  utmost  skill. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  the  modern  way 
is  worse  or  better,  but  that  it  is  different. 
The  modern  way  leads  to  the  study  of  colour 
values,  and  it  is  perhaps  the  only  way  by  which 
they  can  be  properly  studied;  but  on  the  other 

12  S 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


hand,  it  makes  the  matter  of  rendering  detail 
more  difficult.  It  is  true  that  there  are  certain 
modern  masters  so  skilful  that  their  works  ap- 
pear at  a moderate  distance  to  be  highly  finished; 
but  when  one  looks  into  them,  one  perceives  that 
they  really  are  not  finished  at  all  — only  sug- 
gested. That  is,  one  perceives  perfectly  well  just 
how  they  are  done.  Whereas  in  Vermeer’s  work, 
in  many  cases  one  has  no  idea  how  they  are  done, 
— they  transcend  all  thought,  they  are  just  there, 
with  no  hint  or  trace  of  their  making. 

Another  question  which  seems  to  fit  in  with 
the  one  just  treated,  is  whether  Vermeer  painted 
de  premier  coup,  or  on  an  ebauche;  that  is,  whether 
he  began  his  painting,  touch  by  touch,  piece  by 
piece,  or  whether  he  made  a general  “rub-in”  as 
most  painters  do  now,  or  made  a frotte  in  trans- 
parent colour  as  Couture  did. 

One  of  the  reasons  we  have  for  thinking  that 
he  may  have,  at  least  in  some  pictures,  painted 
de  premier  coup  is  that  in  the  picture  of  the  Stu- 
dio the  artist,  who  has  drawn  in  his  subject  in 
white  chalk,  is  beginning  to  paint  the  wreath  on 
the  girl’s  head  without  having  rubbed  in  the  rest 
of  the  picture  at  all.  As  has  been  pointed  out  in 

126 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


another  place,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing 
the  artist  to  be  Vermeer  himself.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  Vermeer  put  up  a model  or  a friend  to 
be  painted,  he  would  probably  have  had  him 
painting  in  the  way  in  which  he  was  himself  ac- 
customed to  paint.  Of  course,  it  may  have  been 
an  ironical  comment  on  another  man’s  way  of 
painting:  but  Vermeer’s  whole  style  seems  so  de- 
tached — so  devoid  of  anecdote  or  comment  — 
that  this  seems  hardly  likely. 

At  first  sight,  with  our  modern  ideas  of  effect, 
this  seems  a very  futile  and  silly  way  of  begin- 
ning a picture;  but  there  are  one  or  two  things 
to  be  considered.  In  the  first  place  a “rub-in” 
is  not  necessarily  true  in  general  effect.  It  is  only 
true  in  so  far  as  its  maker  was  skilful  enough  to 
make  it  true.  If  the  mysterious  artist  who  is 
painting  that  wreath  were  clever  enough  to  pitch 
his  darkest  accent  and  his  highest  light  about 
right,  his  picture  would  turn  out  truer  in  values 
than  a picture  made  by  a “rubber-in”  who  did 
not  get  his  darkest  accent  and  his  high  light  just 
right.  The  disadvantage  of  a rub-in  of  the  gen- 
eral effect  is  that  from  its  very  rapidity  one  is 
apt  to  get  everything  more  or  less  wrong,  — it  is 
not  in  humanity  to  get  all  the  tones  right  in  half 

127 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

an  hour.  The  trouble  is  that  the  painter  is  then 
apt  to  assume  that  his  general  effect  is  right,  and, 
proceeding  on  that  supposition,  to  produce  a some- 
thing that  is  too  dingy  or  too  dark  or  too  brown 
or  whatever  the  general  defect  of  his  rub-in  may 
have  been.  One  sees  this  particularly  in  landscape 
painting,  where  our  painter  will  make  a general 
rub-in  of  the  large  effect  and  wake  up  after  sev- 
eral days’  work  to  find  that  he  has  started  his 
whole  picture  on  too  dingy  or  too  chalky  a key. 

Let  us  suppose  a specific  instance.  Suppose  a 
subject  of  a field  of  red  poppies  in  sunlight  with 
dark  trees  in  the  middle  distance  and  a blue  sky 
beyond.  “A”  might  rub  in  the  general  relation 
of  the  sky  and  the  trees,  putting  in  the  poppies 
as  best  he  could  in  relation  to  these  two.  When 
he  comes  to  finish  he  is  apt  to  find  that  by  pitch- 
ing the  tone  of  his  poppies  right  in  relation  to 
the  trees  he  has  put  in  too  much  white  paint, 
thereby  losing  “saturation,”  and  has  nothing  left 
to  express  their  brilliancy  of  colour. 

“B”,  on  the  other  hand,  might  paint  his  pop- 
pies first,  getting  his  reds  as  strong  as  possible; 
when  he  comes  later  to  do  the  trees  he  finds  that 
he  must  make  them  quite  dark  to  be  in  relation 
with  the  red  poppies;  this  he  does.  Then  he 

128 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


paints  his  sky  in  relation  to  the  other  two  notes 
and  gets  a painting  that  suggests  a good  deal  of 
the  brilliancy  of  nature.  In  fact,  though  he  has 
not  rubbed-in  his  picture  as  has  done,  he 

has  really  thought  more  about  the  relations  of 
tones  and  colours. 

It  may  have  been  that  Vermeer  proceeded  in 
some  such  way  as  this.  He  may  have  decided 
just  how  dark  to  make  his  dark  notes,  — his  black 
picture  frames,  etc.;  he  may  have  decided  on  just 
how  light  he  could  make  his  light  notes  and  still 
have  them  coloured;  he  may  have  indicated  their 
“pitch ’’and  gradually  have  rendered  the  “inter- 
mediate” notes  in  their  relation  to  the  lights  and 
darks. 

Usually  things  that  are  carried  very  far  are  be- 
gun piece  by  piece.  The  mere  fact  that  the  artist 
does  not  get  a general  effect  at  once,  makes  him 
more  solicitous  about  the  effect.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  he  has  secured  an  easy  general  effect 
he  is  apt  to  rest  satisfied  with  that,  without  try- 
ing to  carry  his  picture  much  further  in  detail. 
One  sees  this  in  the  case  of  Manet  who  painted 
his  pictures  in  such  a way  as  to  be  very  effective 
but  so  as  quite  to  preclude  any  going  on  or 
finishing. 


129 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Vermeer’s  pictures  owe  not  a little  of  their 
charm  to  a quality  which  it  has  become  the  fash- 
ion to  call  “architectonic;”  that  is,  whatever 
may  be  happening  in  the  picture  in  the  way  of 
incident  or  action,  one  feels  always  behind  it  these 
firm  upright  lines  — column  or  pilaster;  these 
quiet  horizontal  lines  of  beam  or  baseboard.  The 
paintings  have  a “built”  look,  and  this  gives  an 
indescribable  sense  of  steadiness  and  peace  to  the 
pictures.  One  proof  that  this  is  so  is  that  one 
feels  the  lack  of  it  at  once  in  the  few  pictures 
that  are  not  composed  in  this  way  — in  the  Cour- 
tesan, for  instance,  or  the  Diana.  Elsewhere  it 
has  been  hinted  how  Vermeer  made  this  balance 
of  grave  vertical  and  horizontal  lines  one  of  the 
elements  of  his  composition.  Whether  he  was 
conscious  or  not  of  a certain  psychic  effect  in 
these  calm,  steady  straight  lines  is  doubtful 
enough;  very  likely  he  was  not.  But  the  effect 
remains,  whether  or  no,  and  while  it  is  an  effect 
that  other  men  as  well  have  striven  for  — De 
Hooch  his  friend,  Albert  Moore,  Whistler  and 
others  — one  somehow  associates  it  most  with 
Vermeer;  without  doubt  because  he  practised  it 
most  successfully. 

Vermeer  had  one  quality  which  he  shares  with 

130 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


very  few  artists,  and  that  is  a certain  severity  of 
line.  One  does  not  think  of  him  primarily  as  a 
line  man  and,  indeed,  it  is  true  that,  for  instance, 
in  the  detail  of  a hand  his  line  sometimes  falters. 
But  he  seems  to  have  understood  perfectly  well 
the  value  and  strength  that  a straight  or  nearly 
straight  line  may  have  in  comparison  with  a 
curved  line.  In  certain  of  his  pictures,  notably 
the  Metropolitan  Museum  example,  he  pushes 
this  simplifying  of  outline  almost  to  excess.  The 
Pearl  Necklace  of  the  Berlin  Gallery  is  also  an 
excellent  example  of  this  sort  of  thing.  In- 
deed, one  might  almost  put  the  maker  of  the  El- 
gin marbles,  Millet,  and  Vermeer  in  a class  by 
themselves  as  understanding  the  simplifying  of 
line  in  a manner  that  is  not  given  to  all  men. 

Vermeer  realises  in  particular  the  value  of  ver- 
ticals and  horizontals  in  strengthening  a compo- 
sition. And  he  perfected,  apparently  by  himself, 
a style  of  composition  which  has  curious  points 
of  likeness  to  that  of  men  as  different  from  him 
as  the  Japanese  on  the  one  hand,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  Whistler  and  Albert  Moore  on  the  other. 
Briefly,  the  method  of  all  these  is  to  build  up  a 
definite  and  rather  severe  mise-en-scene  of  straight 
verticals  and  horizontals  and  then  to  break  these 

131 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


lines  by  beautifully  imagined  arabesques  disposed 
in  just  the  right  places.  With  Vermeer  these 
arabesques  are  stiffer  in  design  — not  so  lovely, 
it  may  be,  as  those,  for  instance,  of  Albert  Moore. 
Yet  they  have  their  own  beauty  even  if  it  is  of 
a more  sober  and  sombre  kind. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  sense  of  the 
value  of  severe  and  distinguished  line  does  not 
appear  at  all  in  his  earlier  work.  There  is  no 
sense  of  it  in  the  Courtesan , nor  yet  in  the  Toi- 
lette of  Diana , which,  truth  to  say,  is  a rather 
tiresome  performance,  as  regards  design.  There  is 
no  particular  sense  of  it  in  the  Milkwoman.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Pearl  Necklace , the  Met- 
ropolitan Woman  at  the  Casement , the  Windsor 
Palace  Music  Lesson  are  instinct  with  this  sense 
of  the  value  of  severe  line.  The  Lady  at  the  Vir- 
ginals at  the  National  Gallery  is  another  good  in- 
stance of  this  fine  understanding  of  the  value  of 
severe  line.  Curiously  enough,  in  some  of  his 
best  painted  works  this  severe  sense  of  line  is  not 
so  obvious  as  in  the  ones  that  have  been  men- 
tioned. In  the  Studio  of  the  Czernin  Collection, 
for  instance,  in  the  Love  Letter  of  the  Ryks  Mu- 
seum, which  seems  to  have  been  painted  about 
the  same  time,  there  is  the  same  system  of  com- 

132 


9 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  ( Authenticity  not  fully  established) 

DIANA  AT  HER  TOILET 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


position  by  verticals  and  horizontals,  but  it  is 
hardly  so  beautiful  in  its  working  out.  It  seems 
as  if  Vermeer  had  at  last  become  so  interested  in 
painting  for  its  own  beautiful  sake  that  he  did 
not  care  so  much  for  the  lesser  graces  of  compo- 
sition or  design. 

The  question  of  Vermeer’s  drawing  is  a per- 
plexed one  to  treat  of,  because,  while  he  drew 
excellently  well  in  one  sense,  he  did  not  draw  so 
well  in  another.  That  is,  such  things  as  still  life 
he  drew,  humanly  speaking,  in  a perfect  way. 
There  is  occasionally  a little  faltering  in  the  get- 
ting one  side  of  a jug  even  with  the  other,  but 
practically  he  drew  still  life  — chairs,  crumpled 
rugs,  and  his  famous  lion’s  head  — perfectly  well. 
And  he  often  drew  heads  and  hands  well,  too,  in 
a certain  sense;  but  that  was  in  the  still-life 
sense.  That  is,  he  rendered  wonderfully  the  gen- 
eral shape  and  size  of  a hand,  the  way  the  light 
slid  over  it,  but  he  was  not  always  particularly 
strong  on  the  structure.  In  fact,  speaking  frankly, 
he  did  not  draw  structurally  at  all.  While  many 
of  the  Dutch  painters  knew  their  anatomy  pass- 
ably well  and  made  structure  fairly  well,  it  is  to 
be  questioned  whether  Vermeer  really  thoroughly 

133 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


understood  the  construction  of  the  arm,  the  wrist, 
the  hand. 

Sometimes  by  sheer  keenness  of  perception  he 
was  able  to  do  one  quite  charmingly  as  in  the 
Pearl  Necklace  in  the  Berlin  Gallery;  again  he 
rather  weakens  as  in  the  arm  of  the  Reader  of 
the  Ryks  Museum. 

It  is  somewhat  the  fashion  to  speak  of  the 
Dutch  as  impeccable  draughtsmen.  Fromentin 
says  something  of  that  sort  and  Mr.  Kenyon  Cox, 
himself  an  accomplished  draughtsman,  writes  words 
to  that  effect.  It  is  true  that  the  Dutch  made  the 
general  shape  and  proportion  quite  true  and  often 
got  the  light  and  shade  admirably,  but  construct- 
ively one  feels  that  they  often  faltered.  Indeed, 
Metzu  was,  perhaps,  the  only  one  who  drew  a 
hand  and  arm  with  much  sense  of  its  construc- 
tion, and  when  one  compares  one  of  his  pictures 
with  one  by  Bargue,  for  instance,  one  perceives 
that  the  modern  man  knew  his  anatomy  the  bet- 
ter of  the  two. 

In  short,  when  one  says  they  drew  well,  it  de- 
pends on  what  one  means  by  good  drawing, — 
that  is,  they  were  strong  in  proportion  and  light 
and  shade,  but  not  so  good  in  construction. 

A wild  scribble  by  Cellini  or  by  any  one  of  the 

*34 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 

baroque  imitators  of  Michael  Angelo  has  more 
suggestion  of  structure  than  any  of  the  Dutch 
works.  This  is  not  to  say  that  these  baroque 
scribbles  were  good;  it  is  merely  to  point  out  that 
their  makers  really  did  know  something  of  struc- 
ture. They  got  at  the  drawing  of  an  arm  or  of 
a torso  from  the  structural  side,  where  the  Dutch 
attacked  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  light  and 
shade  and  of  proportion. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  where  Vermeer  drew  still 
life  admirably,  he  was  not  quite  so  successful  in 
treating  drapery.  He  often,  to  be  sure,  made  a 
wholly  admirable  bit;  but  again,  as  in  the  New 
Testament  his  treatment  of  drapery  was,  not  to 
put  too  fine  a point  on  it,  extremely  bad.  This 
did  not  matter  so  much  when  he  treated  the 
stiffly  quaint  costumes  of  the  day,  but  when  he 
attempted  a classic  subject  his  lack  of  skill  in 
managing  the  draperies  is  unedifying.  This  is 
illustrated  not  only  in  the  New  Testament  but  also 
in  the  Diana  and  her  Nymphs,  where  the  drapery 
of  the  chaste  huntress  is  badly  cluttered  up. 

Even  where  he  was  more  successful  in  the 
treatment  of  draperies,  it  must  be  confessed  that 
he  made  them  at  times  a little  blocky.  His 

square-touch  technique  is  more  manifest  in  the 

135 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

draperies  than  anywhere  else.  In  some  cases, 
notably  in  the  Astronomer , the  folds  are  made  by 
a sort  of  convention,  not  unlike  what  the  Van 
Eycks  used.  The  directness  of  vision  which 
served  so  well  for  the  rendering  of  jugs,  or  even 
crumpled  rugs,  seemed  for  a moment  to  desert 
him  in  the  handling  of  draperies.  It  seems  as  if 
he  grew  self-conscious  in  attacking  such  a diffi- 
cult problem  and  could  not  work  with  his  accus- 
tomed sang-froid.  At  all  events,  he  does  not 
paint  across  the  form,  as  in  many  of  his  beauti- 
ful heads  or  bits  of  still  life,  but  with  the  form 
in  the  manner  of  lesser  men. 

It  is  true  that  in  certain  of  his  pictures  he 
escapes  from  this  uneasiness.  The  white  cap  or 
kerchief  in  the  Young  Woman  at  a Casement  of 
the  Metropolitan  Museum  is  very  brilliantly 
painted,  even  though  the  jacture  be  a trifle  blocky. 
The  skirt  of  the  Brunswick  Coquette  is  ably  made 
— but  this  was  probably  arranged  on  a lay  figure. 
And  this  supposition  suggests  the  reason  of  Ver- 
meer’s difficulties.  He  could  do  drapery  like  a 
crumpled  rug  or  a hanging  curtain  magnificently, 
because  they  stayed  still  for  him;  he  rendered  what 
he  saw.  In  the  same  way  he  could  do  the  very 
complicated  folds  of  a satin  skirt,  if  only  it  were 

136 


Jan  Fermeer  of  Delft 

THE  GIRL  WITH  THE  WINE  GLASS 

Picture  Gallery,  Brunswick 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


on  a lay  figure.  But  when  he  attempted  a prob- 
lem like  Diana  and  her  Nymphs  where  the 
draperies  had  to  be  invented  or  divined  he  was 
something  at  sea. 

To  make  handsome  classic  drapery  requires  a 
special  sort  of  study  and  a particular  understand- 
ing of  the  nature  and  manner  of  the  folds.  This 
Vermeer  did  not  have.  It  is  nothing  against  him 
to  say  this.  He  simply  showed  the  defect  of 
his  quality.  Vermeer  had  a wonderful  eye  and  a 
wonderful  hand.  Anything  that  would  keep  still 
for  him,  that  he  could  fairly  see  — look  at  again 
and  again  and  study  — that  thing  he  could  ren- 
der as  no  other  man  has  been  able  to.  But  shift- 
ing, flowing  rivers  of  drapery,  such  as  run  over 
classic  forms  — these  things  seem  to  have  puzzled 
and  perplexed  him.  One  feels  his  renderings  of 
them  to  be  forms  not  thoroughly  understood. 

Vermeer’s  drawing  of  heads  was  usually  ade- 
quate enough  — in  some  cases  quite  masterly,  as 
in  the  Lace-Maker  or  the  Head  of  a Girl  in  the 
Hague  Museum.  In  other  cases  it  was  hardly  so 
good.  The  heads  in  the  Coquette  of  the  Bruns- 
wick Gallery  are  not  very  well  made,  and  the 
girl’s  head  in  the  Music  Lesson  of  Mr.  Frick’s 
collection  is  rather  disappointing. 

137 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

One  notes  at  least  three  different  sorts  of  tech- 
nique. In  the  Lace-Maker  and  the  Woman  at  the 
Casement  the  square-touch  handling  is  quite  marked. 
In  the  Milkwoman,  while  the  handling  of  the 
head  is  not  so  pointille  as  is  the  fruit  and  the 
bread,  still  the  whole  treatment  of  the  thing 
seems  more  solid  and  “fatter”  in  technique.  Again 
in  one  or  two  heads  the  paint  seems  rubbed  or 
smeared  together  in  a fused  whole.  The  head  of 
a young  girl  in  the  Arenberg  Gallery  is  a good 
example  of  this.  Any  sense  of  square  touch  has 
disappeared  from  the  head,  although  it  is  marked 
enough  in  the  draperies.  The  light  seems  to  slide 
across  the  face  which  appears  somewhat  as  a 
half-tone  print  from  a photograph  from  nature 
might  appear.  The  head  is  rather  remarkable  in 
this  respect,  although  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  be 
among  his  best  works. 

Gesture  is  a quality  which  in  certain  artists’ 
work  is  supremely  important.  In  the  work  of 
Ingres,  for  instance,  it  plays  an  essential  part, 
and  much  of  the  distinction  of  his  work  springs 
from  the  original  and  well  chosen  gestures  of  his 
figures.  But  it  must  be  said  for  Vermeer  that 
the  quality  of  gesture  in  his  painting  is  but  of 

138 


VERMEER’S  TECHNIQUE 


secondary  importance.  It  is  usually  adequate  — 
it  is  seldom  grotesque,  as  so  often  in  Rembrandt; 
yet  for  a man  so  original  in  arrangement  and  in 
colour  as  was  Vermeer,  it  is  curious  that  his  ges- 
ture was  of  so  unimportant  a quality.  In  a figure 
like  the  Lace-Maker , for  example,  the  movement 
is  perfectly  adequate.  It  explains  what  the  young 
girl  is  doing,  yet  somehow  one  feels  that  there  is 
nothing  particularly  significant  about  it.  In  the 
work  of  Edgar  Degas  the  most  unimportant  things 
sometimes  take  on  a certain  significance.  So  that 
one  gazes  at  one  of  his  ballet  girls  or  washer- 
women and  sees  in  her  gesture  a significance,  an 
intention,  as  it  were,  more  important  than  the 
mere  necessity  of  the  movement. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  significant  gestures  in 
Vermeer’s  work  is  that  of  the  Milkwoman.  One 
can  imagine  Jean  Francois  Millet  looking  on  this 
work  with  approbation,  and  he  was  not  easy  to 
please,  since  Velasquez  failed  to  move  him.  In- 
deed, in  certain  ways,  it  is  a sort  of  prevision  of 
Millet’s  work,  only  done  with  immensely  greater 
technical  skill  — and  incidentally  it  is  much  more 
true.  The  movement  has  something  of  the  large 
dignity  of  Millet  — though  hardly  his  poignancy 
of  action. 


139 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

It  would  seem  that  the  most  beautiful  gesture 
which  Vermeer  achieved  was  that  of  the  Pearl 
Necklace  of  the  Berlin  Gallery.  Here  one  feels 
more  of  significance  in  the  pose  — perhaps  because 
it  suggests  the  eternal  feminine.  At  all  events 
it  is  among  the  most  popular  of  his  works  — 
and  this  would  seem  to  be  due  to  the  gesture 
as  much  as  anything,  although  the  fact  that  the 
woman  has  a pretty  face  may  have  something  to 
do  with  it.  When  one  comes  to  analyse  this 
profile,  by  the  way,  it  is  not  really  so  fine  or 
so  well  made  as  the  profile  of  the  Reader  in  the 
Ryks  Museum. 


140 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


CHAPTER  V 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 

ONE  constantly  finds  the  term  “values”  in 
modern  art  criticism,  and  in  any  discussion 
of  Vermeer  the  term  occurs  so  often  that  it  is 
quite  necessary  thoroughly  to  understand  its 
meaning.  It  is  based  on  our  common  sense  of 
the  relative  values  of  things.  For  instance,  one 
reads  in  an  advertisement,  “Good  values  in 
shirts.”  One  shirt  is  worth  a dollar  — another 
two  — some  very  glorious  one  is  worth  five. 

Now  let  us  suppose  that  we  had  two  slips  of 
paper,  one  slightly  darker  than  the  other,  and 
that  for  some  reason  to  be  dark  made  the  paper 
worth  more.  The  value  of  the  white  slip  might  be 
one  cent,  of  the  darker  one  two  cents. 

Let  us  then  suppose  we  had  a cube:  the  value 
of  the  top,  which  received  the  high  light,  might 
be  one  cent;  of  the  side,  still  in  light,  but  less 
strongly  lit,  two  cents.  The  value  of  the  side  in 
shadow  might  be  three  cents,  and  the  shadow 

M3 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

cast  on  the  table  might  be  four  cents.  On  look- 
ing attentively  at  the  shadow  we  might  perceive 
a reflected  light  lighter  than  the  rest  of  the 
shadow  yet  darker  than  the  other  two  sides; 
that  might  be  worth  two  and  a half  cents.  That 
would  be  its  “value.” 

But  we  might  have  two  cubes,  one  white,  one 
grey.  Then  the  high  light  on  the  white  cube 
might  be  one  cent,  its  half  light  two  cents.  The 
high  light  on  the  grey  cube  might  be  actually 
darker  than  the  half  light  on  the  white  cube;  then 
its  value  might  be  three  cents.  It  might  happen 
that  the  shadow  of  the  white  cube  was  lighter 
than  the  half  light  on  the  grey,  then  its  “value” 
would  be  four  cents.  The  half  light  on  the  grey 
cube  would  be  worth  five  cents,  and  its  shadow 
six  cents.  That  is,  we  pretend  that  as  tones  grow 
light  or  dark  their  relative  value  increases  or  di- 
minishes, and  there  we  have  the  meaning  of  the 
word  “value,”  as  used  in  art  discussions. 

It  should  be  noted  that  it  does  not  make  any 
difference  whether  a tone  is  light  or  dark  through 
the  greater  or  less  amount  of  light  falling  on  it 
or  through  its  actual  tone  or  colour.  Its  value  is 
determined  by  the  amount  of  light  or  dark  tone 
it  offers  to  the  eye.  One  can  readily  see  that  in 

144 


fan  V ermeer  of  Delft 

A GIRL  AT  THE  SPINET 


Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London 


1 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


an  octagon  many  more  “values”  would  be  offered 
to  the  eye,  and  in  a sphere  a practically  unlim- 
ited number  is  afforded.  Yet  that  is  a compara- 
tively simple  proposition.  When  we  have  a 
roomful  of  people  to  be  painted  the  amount  of 
“values”  would  mount  to  the  millions. 

Artists,  however,  in  preparing  or  rubbing-in  a 
sketch,  merely  try  to  get  what  they  call  the  “big 
values.”  For  instance,  a landscape  painter  in 
starting  a painting  would  try  to  get  the  relative 
“values”  of  the  sky,  the  distance,  of  the  trees  and 
of  the  foreground,  without  at  first  much  solici- 
tude for  the  smaller  “values”  such  as  the  high 
light,  half  light,  penumbra,  shadow,  reflected 
lights,  accents  and  translucencies  of  each  sepa- 
rate individual  leaf. 

In  indoor  work  an  artist  painting,  let  us  say,  a 
head,  tries  in  his  “rub-in”  to  get  the  relative 
values  of  the  background,  the  hair  in  shadow,  the 
face  in  shadow,  the  hair  in  light  and  the  face  in 
light.  Later  he  tries  to  make  the  various  lesser 
values. 

In  modern  painting,  however,  the  affair  is  im- 
mensely complicated  by  the  question  of  what  are 
called  colour  values  — or  colour  relations.  To 
return  for  a moment  to  our  cubes.  Let  us  sup- 

145 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


pose  that  we  have  a yellow  cube  and  a blue  cube. 
Each  has  its  set  of  values:  high  light,  half  light 
and  shadow.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  actual  tone 
of  the  blue  cube  is  rather  darker  than  the  yellow; 
then  the  values  may  run  something  as  follows: 
Value  one,  yellow  high  light;  value  two,  yellow 
half  light;  value  three,  blue  high  light;  value 
four,  yellow  shadow;  value  five,  blue  half  light; 
value  six,  blue  shadow. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  actual  tone  of  the 
yellow  and  blue  cubes  is  exactly  as  light  or  as 
dark  as  each  other,  the  question  is  complicated. 
The  high  light  of  the  yellow  is  the  same  “light 
and  dark  value”  as  that  of  the  blue  — but  it  is 
a different  “colour  value.” 

One  can  conceive  that  if  one  had  a red,  a 
yellow  and  a blue  cube,  not  to  mention  a green, 
an  orange,  and  a purple  one,  the  question  of 
colour  values  would  be  even  more  complicated. 
With  octagons  the  matter  would  be  worse;  and 
when  one  has  a roomful  of  articles  the  affair 
becomes  tragic. 

But  there  are  even  more  complications.  Let  us 
suppose  that  our  cubes  are  placed  near  a north 
window:  — a rather  bluish  light  from  the  cold 
blue  sky  falls  on  the  objects.  Let  us  suppose  the 

146 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


cubes  lie  on  a yellowish  quartered  oak  table  — 
and  that  a bit  of  red  drapery  reflects  some  of  its 
colour  into  the  shadows. 

Then  the  yellow  cube  in  light  would  not  be 
exactly  yellow  but  yellow  plus  a greyish  blue 
light;  that  is,  it  might  be  a cool  yellowish  grey; 
on  the  other  hand,  part  of  the  shadow  might  par- 
take of  the  warm  reflection  from  the  table  and 
be  a warm  yellow,  while  another  part  would  be 
almost  orange  from  the  reflection  of  the  red 
drapery. 

The  blue  cube,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  a 
cool  blue  in  the  light,  but  the  shadows  would 
look  greenish  in  one  part,  purplish  in  another, 
according  as  they  reflected  from  the  yellow  table 
or  from  the  red  drapery. 

One  can  see  that  this  complicates  the  question 
immensely.  The  old  masters  had  their  way  of 
simplifying  this  matter  which  was  to  pay  no  par- 
ticular attention  to  the  reflected  lights,  and  to 
paint  all  the  shadows  a uniformly  rich  brownish 
tone  without  regard  to  their  local  or  actual  colour. 
One  sees  this  carried  to  an  extreme  in  the  work 
of  Ribera  but  even  so  subtle  a painter  as  Velas- 
quez wras  not  much  preoccupied  about  the  “colour 
values”  of  his  shadows,  save  in  his  latest  work. 

147 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Certain  painters  like  Rubens,  noticed  that  in- 
door lights  were  apt  to  be  cooler  than  the  shad- 
ows — that  the  darker  half  lights  were  apt  to 
come  of  a pearly,  ashy  quality,  and  that  the 
shadows,  particularly  the  reflected  lights,  were  apt 
to  be  rather  warm.  Rubens  reduced  this  to  a 
formula  as  may  be  seen  in  his  famous  Marie 
de ’ Medici  group  of  decorations  in  the  Louvre. 

Vermeer,  on  the  other  hand,  had  the  preten- 
sion to  make  each  tone  just  as  it  appeared.  It 
is  doubtful  if  he  had  reduced  the  matter  to  a 
scientific  basis:  it  seems  more  probable  that  he 
merely  observed  the  appearance  of  things  more 
closely  and  more  naively  than  the  majority  of 
artists  who  had  gone  before  him. 

It  is  this  preoccupation  with  colour  values 
which  makes  modern  painting  wholly  different 
from  antique  painting.  It  is  unfair  to  compare 
modern  art  with  that  of  most  of  the  old  masters, 
for  we  of  this  day  are  trying  for  things  which  the 
old  masters  never  even  dreamt  of.  What  Im- 
pressionism had  to  say  of  the  greatest  worth  to 
modern  artists  was  a word  on  this  matter  of 
colour  values.  An  impressionist  started  his  tree 
with  green  paint;  then  if  the  tree  seemed  too 
green,  he  put  some  purple  and  some  red  into  his 

148 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 

sketch.  The  chief  object  of  painting  became  in 
his  work  this  careful  study  of  the  relative  values 
of  different  spots  of  colour.  This  solicitude  for 
values  often  made  the  impressionists  pay  less 
attention  to  drawing  than  had  before  been 
thought  necessary.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that 
most  of  the  good  genre  painters,  in  this  country, 
at  least,  have,  at  one  or  another  time,  made  a 
deep  study  of  the  impressionistic  formulae.  This 
study,  and  the  knowledge  proceeding  from  it,  has 
given  the  modern  painters  of  interiors  certain 
qualities  of  colour  that  are  never  noted  in  the 
old  ones  — even  of  the  Dutch  school.  What  Im- 
pressionism did  show  to  men  was  how  to  consider 
carefully  the  exact  colour  of  every  square  inch  of 
their  canvas  and  its  relation  to  every  other  inch. 
When  these  men  came  to  take  up  indoor  painting 
something  of  this  colour  sense  — a something 
more  exact  than  mere  intuition  for  colour  — re- 
mained with  them.  To  one  who  knows,  it  is 
quite  easy  to  note  the  difference  in  colour  be- 
tween the  work  of  a man  who  has  at  one  or  an- 
other time  worked  impressionistically  and  that  of 
one  who  has  not.  The  work  of  the  former  is  apt 
to  be  more  beautiful  in  greys;  that  of  the  latter 
almost  always  has  a brownish  colour,  which  is 

149 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


the  'sign  manual  of  insensitiveness  to  subtle 
colouration. 

What  the  moderns  have  not  as  yet  achieved  is 
the  high  finish  which  the  older  painters  did  get. 
One  can  readily  see  that,  when  a painter  is 
thinking  all  the  time  of  how  one  spot  compares 
in  colour  with  half  a hundred  other  spots,  he  is 
less  likely  to  force  himself  to  carry  or  finish  each 
bit  as  far  as  he  might.  Every  added  value  in- 
creases the  difficulty,  and  he  is  too  apt  to  rest 
satisfied  with  a general  effect  and  not  strive  to 
carry  it  much  further. 

Certain  modern  painters  have,  or  pretend  to 
have,  carried  this  study  of  values  to  tremendous 
lengths.  A well  known  Franco-American  painter 
used  to  tell  of  having  counted  a hundred  and 
fifty  values  for  a picture  he  was  painting.  Prac- 
tically, however,  most  painters  do  not  pursue  this 
method.  They  proceed  more  as  a sculptor  might 
who  would  make  the  large  planes  of  his  head, 
and  later,  when  all  was  established,  elaborate  the 
smaller  planes  and  gradations.  So,  too,  the 
painter  in  making  a head,  usually  first  establishes 
the  general  plan  of  light  and  shade,  and  later 
puts  in  the  larger  planes,  and  last  the  smaller 
planes  and  gradations.  As  far  as  we  can  judge 

150 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


by  studying  his  work,  this  is  very  much  the  plan 
on  which  Vermeer  proceeded. 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  this  com- 
prehension of  the  relation  of  things  or  values  was 
one  of  Vermeer’s  greatest  qualities  — one  of  the 
things  that  go  to  make  his  work  unique.  Other 
men  have  been  celebrated  for  their  “values,”  for 
their  sense  of  the  relation  of  things;  but  it  seems 
as  if  in  Vermeer  this  sense  was  more  acute,  not 
only  in  “light  and  dark  values,”  but  in  “colour 
values.” 

No  man  ever  understood  light  and  shade  more 
thoroughly  or  made  it  better  than  did  Vermeer. 
And  one  cannot  study  his  work  long  without  feel- 
ing that  this  same  light  and  shade  was  one  of  the 
most  subtle  qualities  in  his  work.  One  often  hears 
his  interiors  praised  for  their  “atmosphere,”  but 
practically  speaking  there  is  no  atmosphere  in  an 
interior.  That  is,  the  difference  between  the  fore- 
ground and  the  background  is  so  slight  that  the 
intervening  atmosphere  does  not  modify  the  dis- 
tance at  all  as  it  often  does  in  landscape.  What 
the  unwary  call  “atmosphere”  in  an  interior  is 
really  light  and  shade  — assuming  that  that  in- 
cludes the  study  of  edges.  And,  indeed,  light  and 

151 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

shade  is  not  so  good  a name  as  was  the  old  Ital- 
ian term  of  chiaroscuro , so  scoffed  at  by  the  un- 
regenerate. The  French  translate  the  term  into 
clair-obscure , and  that  puts  it  very  well.  It  is 
the  study  of  what  parts  appear  clearly  and  what 
parts  are  more  or  less  obscure.  One  might  com- 
ment on  this,  “Why  study  what  must  be  per- 
fectly obvious?”  But  that  is  the  curious  thing 
about  it.  Before  we  begin  to  study  drawing  and 
painting  our  eye  is  trained  to  pierce  obscurities, 
to  try  to  find  out  what  is  within,  so  that  prac- 
tically the  layman  sees  as  much  in  a shadow  as 
in  a light.  In  fact,  until  we  are  trained  in 
drawing  we  see  not  the  shadow  but  what  is  in 
the  shadow.  One  of  the  things  for  a student  to 
learn  is  to  note  the  comparative  obscurity  of 
things  in  shadow  compared  to  those  in  light. 

Vermeer,  then,  noted,  in  a remarkable  way,  this 
comparative  obscurity  of  the  shadows  in  relation 
to  the  lights.  And  he  did  not  make  them  too 
obscure  as  did  Ribera,  for  instance,  but  of  just 
the  obscurity  they  had  in  nature  and  no  more. 
This  may  seem  simple  enough,  but  it  is  really  one 
of  the  most  difficult  things  in  painting.  One  way 
of  observing  its  difficulties  is  to  note  the  pitfalls 
into  which  the  various  great  exponents  of  chiaro- 

152 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


scuro  have  fallen.  Ribera,  as  we  have  seen,  and 
Caravaggio  as  well,  made  the  shadows  too  ob- 
scure and  too  black.  Rembrandt,  who  had  a 
much  better  sense  of  the  illumination  of  shadows 
by  reflected  light,  possibly  made  them  too  warm; 
possibly,  also,  he  sometimes  exaggerated  the  re- 
flected lights.  He  did  not  always  make  the 
proper  colouristic  difference  between  the  light  and 
the  shadow.  Velasquez,  in  many  ways  a master 
of  light  and  shade,  made,  it  would  seem,  the 
shadows  of  too  uniformly  brown  a nature  — ex- 
cept in  one  or  two  wonderful  pictures  like  Las 
Meninas. 

Again,  in  the  matter  of  the  edge  of  the  shadow 
against  the  light,  Ribera  made  the  edge  too  sharp 
or  of  too  ropy  a picturesqueness.  Correggio,  one 
would  say,  often  made  it  too  soft. 

It  is  not  in  humanity  to  be  perfect,  but  it 
would  seem  that  Vermeer  made  light  and  shade 
better  than  did  any  of  these  others.  His  colour 
does  not  always  seem  absolutely  right,  but  that 
may  be  laid  down  to  colour  changes;  because  in 
those  of  his  pictures  which  have  “kept,”  the 
colour  of  the  shadows  is  quite  beautiful.  But  his 
light  and  shade  seems  practically  perfect. 

He  had  a fine  sense  of  the  proper  amount  of 

153 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

softness  or  sharpness  for  the  shadow,  although  it 
would  seem  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  laying  in 
the  shadows  of  his  draperies  rather  sharp  of  edge. 
In  various  of  his  pictures  he  has  overcome  this; 
in  others,  it  appears  that  for  one  reason  or  an- 
other he  had  not  had  time  to  finish  them 
completely. 

It  is  in  his  still  life  that  he  is  most  successful, 
and  it  must  be  admitted  that,  with  certain  beau- 
tiful exceptions,  Vermeer  painted  flesh  in  some- 
thing the  same  spirit  that  he  painted  still  life. 
The  light  and  shade  is  always  handsome;  some- 
times the  construction  is  hardly  so  good.  But  in 
still  life  he  is  always  wonderful.  One  does  not, 
off  hand,  recall  a single  instance  where  he  has 
failed  in  still  life.  No  one  has  ever  painted  the 
graduated  light  on  a wall  better  than  he.  It 
may  be  that  some  of  the  moderns  have  noted 
the  shifting  colours  more  acutely,  but  they  would 
be  the  first  to  acknowledge  that  he  was  their 
master  and  had  indicated  the  way  to  be  followed. 

Many  of  the  things  in  Vermeer’s  work  which 
the  uninitiate  does  not  notice  are  really  the  most 
astonishing  of  all.  Let  us  take,  as  an  instance, 
the  way  he  would  paint  a map.  A map  in  those 
days  was  a much  more  important  thing  than  now. 

154 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


It  was  very  expensive.  The  plates  were  made  by 
hand  and  printed  by  hand;  and  they  were  illus- 
trated with  interesting  designs  and  comments,  — 
“Here  is  much  gold,”  “Here  be  antres  vast  — 
and  anthrophagi.”  A map  was  a serious  thing, 
beautifully  made,  very  expensive,  and  its  pos- 
session was  a matter  of  pride.  It  was  used  as  a 
decoration  — just  like  a picture.  Or,  at  all  events, 
Vermeer  perceived  its  decorative  value  and  so 
used  it  in  his  pictures,  as  did  many  other  Dutch 
artists. 

To  Vermeer  a map  was  not  a thing  to  be 
scamped  but  to  be  lovingly  studied  in  its  every 
detail.  And  yet  the  problem  was  to  make  it 
“lie  flat,”  to  “keep  back,”  not  to  be  “too  busy.” 
Well,  somehow  Vermeer  accomplished  all  this  — 
he  managed  to  indicate  every  scrap  of  detail  and 
yet  to  give  the  sense  of  shifting  light  on  it  as  if 
it  were  merely  a flat  part  of  a flat  wall. 

It  is  impossible  for  any  one  who  has  not  painted 
to  realise  the  difficulty  of  this.  Most  artists 
usually  either  put  in  all  the  detail  and  fail  more 
or  less  ingloriously  in  presenting  the  flatness  of 
the  wall  and  making  the  map  keep  its  place;  or, 
more  commonly,  they  deliberately  leave  out  most 
of  the  detail,  or  blur  it  by  a conventional  trick. 

155 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Vermeer  did  neither  of  these  things;  he  simply 
quietly  made  it  just  the  way  it  looked  — and 
just  the  way  it  looked,  too,  at  so  many  feet  be- 
hind the  principal  figure.  There  is  only  one  pos- 
sible way  of  doing  this,  and  that  is  by  the  proper 
study  and  correct  rendering  of  values,  of  edges 
and  of  chiaroscuro. 

Almost  all  the  critics  who  write  about  Vermeer 
— even  so  intelligent  a man  as  Dr.  Hofstede  de 
Groot  — speak  of  many  of  his  pictures  being  in 
sunlight. 

Dr.  de  Groot,  speaking  of  De  Hooch  in  com- 
parison to  Vermeer,  says,  “Both  men  showed  a 
common  preference  for  effects  of  strong  sunlight,” 
etc.  It  is  true  enough  that  De  Hooch  often 
painted  sunlight  in  his  pictures,  but  so  far  as  one 
knows,  except  in  the  View  of  Delft , Vermeer  never 
got  it  into  his  pictures.  His  paintings,  to  be  sure, 
are  irradiated  with  light,  but  it  is  most  often 
the  cool  light  that  comes  from  a north  window. 
This  is  easy  enough  to  prove,  for  sunlight  on  a 
figure  makes  sharp  edges  and  strong  reflected 
lights.  None  of  Vermeer’s  pictures  have  either 
of  these  characteristics. 

The  only  picture  that  could  possibly  give  colour 

156 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

THE  LOVE  LETTER 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 


Vermeer  di  .<  '.'her  of  theft  n;  he  rim  ply 

quiet  ty  just  the  way  'x;!cd“—  an  i 

kcipal  fi  ure.  ri  ere  is  < V/  one  pos- 
<»1  doing  this,  and  that  is  by  the  proper 
i i con  ct  renderi  ^ of  values,  of  edges 

/ 

all  the  critics  who  write  about  Vermeer 
so  intelligent  a man  as  Dr.  Hofstede  de 

T3J3CI  30  333M33V  WAfc 

H3TT3J  3VOJ  3HT 

M/teJumMA  .Muaadf/  e'A\\% 

»r  preference  tor  effects  of  strong  sunlight, 

cept  in  the  Picwaf  Delfl , Vermeer  ne-er 
nto  his  pictures.  *His  paintings.  :o  be  sure, 
ted  w th  light,  but  it  is  most  often 

■ 

(A  these 


V 


I 


VALUES  IN  VERMEER’S  PAINTING 


to  this  theory  is  the  Love  Letter  of  the  Rijks  Mu- 
seum, where  the  cast  shadows  of  the  pictures  on 
the  wall  are  so  sharp  and  strong  as  to  suggest 
sunlight.  Even  here,  however,  one  feels  doubt- 
ful about  the  matter,  for  the  figures  and  faces  of 
the  lady  and  of  the  maid  servant  are  not  modi- 
fied by  reflected  light,  as  they  certainly  would 
have  been  in  sunlight. 

Besides,  sunlight  coming  into  a room  makes  a 
decided  area  or  splash  of  light  in  one  place. 
The  other  parts  of  the  room  are,  in  relation,  con- 
siderably darker  — they  are  also  irradiated,  but 
by  reflected  lights  or  by  the  light  from  the  sky, 
not  directly  by  the  sun  itself.  This  is  well 
illustrated  in  Jannsen’s  Lady  at  her  Writing- 
table  at  the  Stadel  Institute,  Frankfort,  where  a 
mass  of  sunlight  shows  itself  quite  different  from 
the  rest  of  the  room. 

One  does  not,  at  present,  recall  any  picture 
by  Vermeer  in  which  this  phenomenon  of  light 
occurs. 

The  light  is  of  the  same  nature  throughout, 
whereas  in  a sunlit  room  there  are  two  distinct 
kinds  of  direct  light  — that  from  the  sun  itself 
and  that  from  the  sky.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said 
that  one  of  the  interesting  differences  between 

157 


■ 


CHAPTER  VI 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 

VERMEER’S  method  of  arrangement  is  to 
an  artist  one  of  his  most  personal  and  pe- 
culiarly characteristic  qualities.  This  personal 
method  of  arrangement  is  not  so  marked  in  his 
earlier  works  as  it  is  in  certain  of  his  later  ones. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  so  apparent  in  his  outdoor 
work  as  it  is  in  his  interiors. 

The  design  — the  pattern,  so  to  say  — of  cer- 
tain of  Vermeer’s  works  is  very  beautiful.  And 
this  is  the  more  remarkable  because  this  quality 
does  not  appear  in  the  works  of  most  of  the 
Dutch  painters.  Their  works  are  often  admirably 
composed,  as  will  appear  to  any  reader  of  old 
Burnet’s  excellent  book  about  composition.  And 
they  are  composed,  too,  in  that  most  difficult  and 
elusive  of  ways  where  the  composition  is  not 
particularly  obvious.  But  most  of  the  able  Dutch 
painters  do  not  seem  to  have  preoccupied  them- 
selves at  all  on  this  question  of  pattern.  One 

1 6 1 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

feels  that  Vermeer’s  friend,  Fabritius,  did,  and 
this  fact  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  thinking  that 
Fabritius  may  have  influenced  Vermeer.  But 
Fabritius’  whole  method  of  design  is  so  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  Vermeer  that  one  cannot  help 
feeling  that  the  latter  may  have  got  his  inspira- 
tion from  some  other  oracle. 

Many  people  use  the  terms  composition  and  de- 
sign as  if  they  were  interchangeable;  but  in  real- 
ity they  are  quite  different.  Composition,  one 
would  say,  is  a composing  or  a pushing  about  of 
the  different  parts  of  a picture  — of  the  main  in- 
terest — of  secondary  and  tertiary  interests  in 
such  a way  that  the  picture  explains  itself. 

Design,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  arranging  or 
studying  out  of  an  agreeable  or  significant  pat- 
tern for  the  picture.  It  includes  the  designing 
or  setting  forth  the  dark  masses  so  that  they 
will  balance  agreeably  with  the  light  masses, 
and  vice  versa , of  course,  with  the  light  masses. 
In  commercial  designing,  the  workmen  make 
great  case  of  having  the  dark  masses  of  the 
design  fit  in  properly  with  the  lighter  masses; 
and  this  is  of  the  same  importance  in  picture 
design. 

Vermeer  managed  both  these  things  excellently 

162 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 


THE  CONCERT 


Collection  of  Mrs.  John  L.  Gardner,  Boston 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


well;  only,  as  his  subjects  were  usually  of  the 
simplest  nature,  the  question  of  composition  was 
not  a peculiarly  intricate  one.  Whatever  story 
there  was  to  tell  was  apt  to  be  of  the  shortest 
and  simplest  nature;  the  intrigue  required  no 
elaborate  working  out.  His  composition  would 
seem  to  have  been  always  adequate,  but  not  par- 
ticularly intricate. 

On  the  other  hand,  his  design  is  often  very 
studied,  often  very  original,  and  in  his  best  ex- 
amples, quite  beautiful.  Off  hand  one  would  speak 
of  the  Music  Lesson  of  the  Windsor  Castle,  the 
Lady  at  the  Virginals  of  the  National  Gallery,  the 
Pearl  Necklace  of  the  Berlin  Gallery. 

Good  in  design,  too,  are  the  Woman  at  the 
Casement  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  the  Reader 
of  the  Amsterdam  Gallery  and  the  other  Reader , 
of  the  Dresden  Gallery. 

These  are  among  the  pictures  of  his  which  one 
thinks  of  as  remarkable  in  design.  On  the  other 
hand,  some  of  his  best  painted  works  do  not 
seem  particularly  remarkable  in  this  respect.  For 
instance,  the  Studio  of  the  Czernin  Gallery,  though 
it  is  handsomely  trimmed,  so  to  say,  with  the 
curtain  on  one  side  and  the  candelabra,  does  not 

163 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

seem  to  be  conceived  for  the  sake  of  the 
design  — as  the  Pearl  Necklace  does,  for  in- 
stance, or  the  Lady  at  the  Virginals.  This  Stu- 
dio, more  than  any  of  his  works,  seems  to  have 
been  painted  for  the  sheer  pleasure  of  painting, 
without  any  particular  preoccupation  about  de- 
sign, story  or  any  other  outside  matter. 

Vermeer’s  design  and  his  composition  as  well 
are  so  personal  and  so  different  from  that  of 
others  that  it  seems  strange  that  his  work  should 
have  been  so  often  mistaken  for  that  of  other 
men  — Terburg,  De  Hooch  and  Metzu.  These 
three  have  certain  points  of  resemblance,  and 
yet,  when  one  studies  their  varying  methods  of 
composition,  one  perceives  vast  differences  be- 
tween the  men. 

Terburg,  as  a rule,  seems  to  have  left  the  back- 
ground merely  as  a foil  for  the  figure.  He  was 
primarily  a figure  painter  — first,  last  and  al- 
ways. He  desired  the  figures  to  be  the  important 
things  in  his  composition.  His  background,  then, 
was  something  to  be  kept  out  of  the  way,  to  be 
effaced  as  much  as  possible,  and  so  he  has  effaced 
them,  often  with  the  most  remarkable  skill.  One 
feels  always  with  these  wonderful  little  figures 
that  they  are  the  whole  thing;  that  the  back- 

164 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


ground  is  quite  completely  secondary,  beautiful 
as  it  may  be  in  its  very  manner  of  staying  back. 
It  would  seem,  one  would  guess,  that  in  making 
a composition  he  arranged  his  little  mannikins  in 
an  agreeable  way  and  then  bethought  himself  of 
some  fitting  background.  When  one  thinks  of 
some  of  his  finest  compositions  — the  Soldier  and 
Woman  of  the  Louvre,  the  Parental  Admonition 
and  others  — one  perceives  that  one  remembers 
the  figures  quite  distinctly,  but  has  a compara- 
tively dim  idea  of  the  background. 

It  is  quite  different  with  De  Hooch.  With  him 
the  mise-en-scene  is  everything.  Evidently  a pic- 
ture presented  itself  to  his  mind  as  an  arrange- 
ment of  beautiful  lines  and  chiaroscuro , which 
represented  some  interior.  The  figures  are  ap- 
parently afterthoughts. 

Indeed,  in  some  cases,  as  in  a picture  in  the 
National  Gallery,  one  can  see  the  lines  of  the 
background  showing  through  the  principal  figure. 
De  Hooch  did  not  do  the  figure  well,  — he  was 
much  the  weakest  in  this  respect  of  the  great 
quartet  of  Terburg,  Metzu,  Vermeer  and  himself. 
At  his  best,  he  is  a marvel  in  the  treatment  of 
interiors,  but  the  moment  he  begins  to  paint  a 
figure  he  seems  embarrassed  and  clumsy.  There- 

165 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

suggest  Vermeer.  Also  the  colour  seems  dif- 
ferent. 

Again,  there  is  a picture  by  Terburg  — and 
one  of  his  most  delightful  ones  — the  Concert  of 
the  Berlin  Gallery,  which  is  so  like  Vermeer  in 
its  method  of  composition  that  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  it  is  not  by  the  Delft  master.  When, 
however,  one  begins  to  examine  the  details  — as 
the  woman’s  head,  her  sleeve,  or  her  satin  dress 
— one  perceives  at  once  that  the  technique  is 
quite  different  from  that  of  the  master  of  Delft. 

Comparison  with  Metzu  is  not  so  instructive, 
because  the  latter’s  method  of  composition  is  not 
so  invariable  as  that  of  these  other  two.  One 
feels  that  he  changed  his  composition  constantly; 
that  he  was  a searcher,  or,  it  may  be,  an  imitator. 
His  Sick  Child,  lately  bought  from  the  Steengracht 
Collection  by  M.  Kleinberger,  suggests  Vermeer. 

One  can  hardly  compare  Vermeer’s  composition 
with  that  of  Rembrandt,  because  the  point  of 
attack  of  the  two  men  was  so  very  different. 
Rembrandt,  one  would  say,  composed  always  by 
the  chiaroscuro.  One  does  not  feel  in  his  work 
any  particular  sense  of  pattern;  indeed,  the  idea 
of  pattern  never  seems  to  have  occurred  to  him. 
Again,  Rembrandt  is  one  of  the  most  dramatic  of 

1 68 


tit  **• 


Gabriel  Melzu 


THE  SICK  CHILD 
In  the  Possession  of  F.  Kleinberger,  Paris 


■ 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


painters.  Even  his  most  quiet  paintings,  like  the 
two  little  Philosophers  in  the  Louvre  or  the  Supper 
at  EmmauSy  are  au  fond  intensely  dramatic. 

With  Vermeer  it  is  quite  the  other  way.  He 
is  not  dramatic  at  all.  Indeed,  it  would  be  hard 
in  the  whole  range  of  painting  to  find  a painter 
less  dramatic  than  he.  His  composition,  when  it 
is  successful,  is  always  so  from  the  aesthetic  stand- 
point, never  from  the  dramatic. 

It  is  really  rather  curious  that  Rembrandt 
should  have  been  selected  by  certain  of  the  un- 
discerning as  a master  for  Vermeer.  Because  the 
men  differ  so  markedly  in  point  of  view,  facture 
or  handling,  in  colour  and  in  quality,  that  one 
gets  to  think  of  them  as  very  different  men. 

We  have  spoken  of  point  of  view  already,  but, 
in  the  matter  of  handling,  the  difference  between 
the  two  men  is  very  marked.  Rembrandt,  as  we 
all  know,  was  apt  to  make  things  very  impasto. 
Vermeer,  on  the  other  hand,  was  particularly  re- 
markable in  this  respect,  that  he  was  able  to 
paint  smoother  than  most  men,  and  yet  able  to 
leave  his  work  in  an  artistic  state.  Moreover, 
while  the  work  of  many  masters  grows  more 
rough  as  they  progress,  Vermeer  was  able,  espe- 
cially in  his  later  pictures,  to  keep  his  surface 

169 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

smooth  to  the  end.  It  is  suggested  by  some  that 
as  Rembrandt  was  a master  of  light  and  as  chia- 
roscuro was  also  a distinguishing  quality  of  Ver- 
meer, the  latter  must  have  been  a pupil  of  the 
former.  But  it  should  be  remembered  that 
Rembrandt  did  not  invent  light  and  shade.  Cor- 
reggio had  done  the  thing  supremely  well  a hun- 
dred years  earlier.  For  a hundred  years,  then, 
light  and  shade,  or  chiaroscuro , had  been  one  of 
the  chiefest  preoccupation  of  painters.  The  whole 
Dutch  school  was  based  on  light  and  shade.  Rem- 
brandt merely  ran  it  into  the  ground,  as  it  were. 

With  Vermeer  this  is  not  so.  Light  and  shade 
appealed  to  him  only  because  it  helped  him  to 
give  the  aspect  of  nature.  Where  Rembrandt 
drenched  his  pictures  with  his  Jekyl  and  Hyde  nos- 
trum of  light  and  shade  — one  in  a white  paper, 
one  in  a blue  — Vermeer  merely  remembered  that 
light  was  clear  — that  shade  was  obscure. 

What  seems  rather  curious  about  Vermeer  is 
that  while  certain  of  his  pictures,  as  we  have 
pointed  out,  appear  extraordinarily  well  designed, 
others  do  not  seem  particularly  remarkable  in 
this  respect.  Nothing,  it  would  seem,  could  be 
handsomer  in  design  than  the  Pearl  Necklace 

170 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


of  the  Berlin  Gallery,  or  the  Lesson  in  Music  of 
the  Windsor  Gallery.  Yet  on  the  other  hand  the 
Courtesan  and  the  Diana  and  her  Nymphs  seem 
rather  uninspired.  The  composition  of  the  Cour- 
tesan is  more  skilful  than  at  first  it  seems  to  be; 
yet  one  would  hardly  think  of  it  as  a masterpiece 
of  design,  which  certainly  is  what  must  be  said  of 
others  of  Vermeer’s  pictures.  Apparently  at  the 
beginning  of  his  career  he  was  trying  so  hard  to 
learn  how  to  render  nature  that  he  was  not 
greatly  interested  in  arrangement.  Later  we  come 
to  his  period  of  beautiful  arrangement;  and  curi- 
ously enough,  at  the  last  in  the  Studio  we  seem 
in  certain  respects  to  come  back  to  his  beginning 
— with  a difference;  that  is,  he  now  seems  so 
delighted  in  the  mere  joy  of  rendering  things 
supremely  well  that  again  his  interest  in  arrange- 
ment per  se  seems  to  wane.  We  begin  to  find  he 
is  a man  of  markedly  different  sides.  It  is  not 
often  that  a very  great  composer  is  mingled  with 
a great  executant.  This  is  so  with  Vermeer,  but 
at  times  one  side  seems  to  come  uppermost,  at 
times  another. 

There  are  in  Vermeer’s  work  certain  strong 
points  of  resemblance  to  the  Japanese,  and  yet 

171 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


there  are  differences  as  well.  The  Japanese,  it 
would  seem,  generally  base  their  composition  on 
some  diagonal  line,  and  very  skilfully  contrive  to 
modify  it  by  opposed  diagonals  and  by  beauti- 
ful arabesques  thrown  against  it.  Vermeer’s  de- 
sign, on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
based  on  a system  of  uprights  and  verticals. 
Moreover,  Vermeer’s  compositions  always  included 
the  element  of  light  and  shade  which,  as  we  all 
know,  the  Japanese  ignore.  It  is  this  interest  in 
light  and  shade  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  ignor- 
ing of  it  on  the  other,  which  makes  one  of  the 
chief  differences  between  occidental  and  oriental 
art. 

Still,  with  all  its  differences,  Vermeer’s  art  does 
indubitably  to  some  extent  suggest  Japanese  art. 
Both  are  particularly  based  on  the  desaxe  system 
of  arrangement.  And  in  both  one  feels  that  the 
question  of  design  or  of  pattern  is  a primary 
motif  instead  of  merely  being  a sort  of  by- 
product. 

Vermeer’s  likeness  to  Whistler,  or  Whistler’s  to 
him,  is  another  matter.  It  is  not  suggested  for  a 
moment  that  Whistler  was  in  any  way  influenced 
by  the  other;  indeed,  it  is  a question  if  Whistler 

172 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


was  ever  very  much  interested  in  the  Dutchman’s 
work.  Still,  there  are  several  curious  points  of 
resemblance  in  arrangement  and  in  composition. 
In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  method,  already 
noted,  of  helping  out  the  composition  by  pictures 
skilfully  placed  on  the  wall  in  such  a way  as  to 
develop  the  main  lines  of  the  composition.  But 
apart  from  all  this,  something  in  the  mental  at- 
titude of  the  two  men  is  much  alike.  Not  that 
Vermeer  was  so  super-rafline  or  so  self-conscious 
as  Whistler.  But  in  a rather  unconscious  way  he 
seems  to  have  loved  long  simple  lines,  and  large 
undisturbed  surfaces.  One  has  a sense  in  the 
work  of  both  of  them  that  there  were  certain 
things  they  liked  very  much,  and  other  things 
they  liked  not  at  all.  There  is  always  a sense 
of  preferences,  of  sacrifices,  of  reticences. 

It  is  true  that  in  Whistler’s  work,  except,  per- 
haps, in  one  or  two  of  his  very  best,  one  feels  a 
dandified  spirit;  while  Vermeer’s,  in  spite  of  its 
supreme  distinction,  is  more  homely  and  uncon- 
scious. Still,  it  is  undeniable  that  both  men  are 
very  distinguished;  the  one  nervous,  self-conscious, 
super-raffine — “dying  of  a rose,”  indeed,  “in 
aromatic  pain,”  the  other  calm,  almost  phleg- 
matic, quite  unconscious,  and  without  pose  — re- 

173 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

fined  through  instinct  rather  than  from  surround- 
ings — liking  whatsoever  things  are  pure  from  a 
sort  of  intellectual  sanity  — yet  both  of  them  not 
the  less  wholly  distinguished  — quite  apart  from 
the  ordinary. 

Delft  was  the  centre  of  the  Delft  ware  industry, 
and  the  famous  blue  and  white  Delft  pottery  was 
avowedly  based  on  the  Chinese  and  Japanese 
blue  and  white  porcelain. 

Many  oriental  vases  were  imported,  and  it  was 
from  the  study  of  the  willow-pattern,  of  the 
hawthorn  vases  and  various  other  more  or  less 
well-known  Chinese  designs  that  Delft  ware  was 
developed.  It  seems  almost  certain  that  in  so 
small  a place  as  Delft,  Vermeer  knew  the  pot- 
teries; doubtless,  being  interested  in  things  artistic, 
he  had  friends  among  the  potters.  It  may  have 
been  that  there  or  somewhere  else  he  saw  certain 
Japanese  designs  that  gave  him  or  suggested  to 
him  his  method  of  balancing  or  completing  his 
design  with  certain  pictures  on  the  wall. 

At  all  events,  we  know  that  Vermeer  knew  and 
loved  oriental  art,  from  the  Chinese  or  Japanese 
vases  which  appear  in  certain  of  his  works.  We 
know  that  the  tremendous  interest  in  Japanese 

174 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 


A GIRL  ASLEEP 
Collection  of  the  late  B.  Altman 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


art,  which  so  moved  the  artists  of  Paris  in  the  six- 
ties and  which  as  much  as  anything  else  had  its 
part  in  the  development  of  Impressionism  and  of 
modern  composition  — that  this  interest  had  its 
rise  from  certain  books  of  Japanese  prints  which 
Bracquemond  found  in  packing  boxes  which  had 
been  used  for  Japanese  vases.  It  seems  at  least 
possible  then  that  Vermeer  may  have  seen  Japan- 
ese prints  or  books  of  prints  left  in  some  pack- 
ing box,  and  that  the  Japanese  method  of  com- 
position may  have  to  some  extent  modified  his 
own. 

At  all  events,  Vermeer’s  style  is  singularly  sug- 
gestive of  the  Japanese.  One  notices  it  in  a 
roundabout  way  through  his  resemblance  to 
Whistler;  that  is,  as  a jesting  artist  once  said, 
Vermeer  seemed  to  imitate  Whistler  a good  deal. 
We  know  that  Whistler  got  his  peculiar  method 
of  arrangement  through  study  of  the  Japanese, 
and  it  would  seem  not  impossible  to  suppose  that 
Vermeer  might  have  attained  his  somewhat  simi- 
lar manner  through  study  of  the  same  sources. 

The  Japanese  make  great  case  of  a quality 
which  they  call  Notan.  This  means  the  proper 
distribution  and  balance  in  size  and  shape  of  the 

*75 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

light  masses  and  the  dark  masses.  With  this 
thought  in  one’s  mind,  one  cannot  study  one  of 
their  fine  prints  a moment  without  perceiving 
how  definitely  and  conclusively  this  idea  is  worked 
out.  There  are  those  who  say  that  no  great 
composition  was  ever  made  which  did  not  have 
this  proper  balance  between  light  masses  and 
dark  masses.  Whether  this  is  true  or  not,  it  is 
certain  that  in  Vermeer’s  best  things  this  quality 
of  Notan , or  balance  of  light  masses  with  dark 
masses,  was  very  strongly  developed.  In  looking 
at  one  of  his  pictures,  one  is  struck  at  once  with 
the  balance,  shape  and  rhythm  of  his  dark 
masses  as  opposed  to  the  light  masses.  And  he 
often  does  this  precisely  in  the  Japanese  way. 
It  is  one  of  the  things  which  makes  one  wonder 
if  he  may  not  have  seen  some  Japanese  prints. 
That  is,  his  dark  mass  is  a mass  which  in  itself 
is  dark,  his  light  mass  is  one  which  in  itself  is 
light.  He  does  not  rely  on  dark  shadows,  as  did 
Rembrandt,  or  sometimes  Tintoretto,  to  pull  him 
out  of  a difficulty  by  indicating  a dark  space  here 
or  there.  Although  he  understood  chiaroscuro 
thoroughly,  as  a matter  of  composition  his  pictures 
would  have  looked  just  as  well  if  they  had  been 
printed  in  flat  local  tones  like  a Japanese  print. 

176 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


This  quality  of  Notan  is  much  stronger  in  his 
later  middle  period  than  in  his  early  period.  And 
this  is  one  of  the  things  which  makes  one  feel 
as  if  some  outside  influence  must  have  affected 
him.  For  the  Courtesan , though  a good  com- 
position, especially  in  colour,  has  little  of  the  de- 
sign which  we  feel  to  be  particularly  character- 
istic of  Vermeer.  The  Toilet  of  Diana  looks  a 
good  deal  like  the  same  sort  of  composition  men 
about  him  were  making.  So  does  the  Mary  and 
Martha , which,  as  far  as  design  goes,  is  rather 
stupid.  The  Milkwoman , despite  its  biblical, 
Millet-like  simplicity,  is  not  unique  as  an  ar- 
rangement. 

But  pictures  like  the  Pearl  Necklace  of  the  Ber- 
lin Gallery,  or  the  Lady  at  the  Virginals  of  the 
National  Gallery,  are  like  nothing  else  of  their 
time  as  far  as  design  goes.  Nothing  like  them 
was  done  in  occidental  art  until  Whistler’s  day. 
And  the  fact  that  Whistler  got  his  inspiration 
from  Japanese  art  makes  one  wonder  if  Vermeer, 
too,  may  not  have  seen  a print  or  two.  In  the 
Pearl  Necklace , the  shapes  and  light  and  dark 
masses  are  balanced  in  just  the  same  spirit  as 
they  would  be  in  a Japanese  print.  Of  course 
there  are  great  differences;  one  is  of  the  Occi- 

177 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

dent,  the  other  of  the  Orient;  but  there  is  in 
both  this  sense  of  Notan , this  balance  of  the  light 
and  dark  masses. 

The  pictures  that  strike  us  particularly  in  this 
way  are  the  Pearl  Necklace , the  Young  Lady  at 
the  Virginals , the  Music  Lesson  of  Windsor  Castle, 
and,  to  a lesser  degree,  the  Woman  at  the  Case- 
ment and  the  Lute  Player.  In  these  there  is  a 
balance  of  design  and  understanding  of  the  proper 
relations  of  light  and  dark  masses  that  is  unique 
in  Dutch  art. 

Another  thing  that  makes  Vermeer’s  composi- 
tion so  very  different  from  the  rest  of  the  Dutch- 
men was  his  way  of  putting  into  a picture  pre- 
cisely the  elements  that  were  needed  and  leaving 
out  everything  else.  This  again  suggests  the 
study  of  Japanese  prints.  In  Vermeer’s  best 
compositions,  like  the  Pearl  Necklace , or  the 
Windsor  Castle  picture,  there  does  not  seem  to 
be  a single  element  which  could  well  be  left  out. 
This  is  not  so  with  many  of  the  Dutchmen.  Jan 
Steens’  canvases  pullulate  cats,  dogs,  bird-cages, 
beer-mugs  and  people.  Metzu,  in  his  best  mo- 
ments very  simple,  as  in  the  Sick  Child , often 
forgot  himself  and  introduced  trivial  accessories, 
as  in  his  market  scenes.  Terburg  had  much  of 

178 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


Vermeer’s  restraint,  but  then  his  little  canvases 
are  often  scenes  at  the  theatre  rather  than  pic- 
torial compositions.  J 

Even  in  Vermeer’s  earliest  compositions  this 
principle  appears.  In  the  Courtesan  the  picture 
seems  a little  crowded,  but  when  one  looks  it 
over,  one  sees  that  every  element  is  necessary  to 
the  composition  — particularly  the  colour  com- 
position — and  could  not  well  be  left  out.  Even 
a rather  stupid  composition  like  the  Mary  and 
Martha  is  simple  enough  in  its  elements.  But  as 
he  goes  on  this  simplicity  of  arrangement  grows 
even  more  marked.  This  is  one  of  the  many 
things  that  make  him  seem  so  modern  to  us. 
For  we,  like  him,  have  come  to  feel  that  a pic- 
ture should  not  be  frittered  up  with  extraneous 
accessories,  but  should  have  its  main  elements 
as  simply  stated  as  is  possible.  i 

One  of  the  characteristics  of  this  design  of  his 
— which  also  is  of  course  characteristic  from 
their  very  nature,  of  Japanese  prints  — is  that  he 
designed  in  dark  against  light.  When  one  stops 
to  think  of  it,  most  of  the  other  Dutch  painters 
did  it  the  other  way  about,  — they  employed  a 
dark  background  as  a sort  of  foil  to  a light  figure. 
Fabritius  is  almost  the  only  one  of  them,  except 

179 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Vermeer,  who  habitually  arranged  dark  against 
light.  Indeed,  this  is  one  of  the  things  which 
leads  one  to  think  Fabritius  influenced  Vermeer. 

One  or  two  of  Metzu’s  are  arranged  in  this 
way,  but  comparatively  few. 

In  Vermeer’s  work  this  is  very  marked.  One 
thinks  of  the  Pearl  Necklace , the  Reader  of  the 
Ryjks  Museum,  the  Woman  at  the  Casement  and 
various  others. 

Even  where  Vermeer  did  not  arrange  his  fig- 
ures to  loom  up  dark  against  the  background,  he 
crowded  dark  masses  in  the  foreground  in  such 
a way  as  to  make  a dark  silhouette  against  the 
more  luminous  middle  distance. 

Vermeer  not  only,  in  his  good  moments,  un- 
derstood the  balance  of  light  and  dark  masses, 
but  he  also  had  a new  and  very  original  way  of 
treating  colour  composition.  For  instance,  in  the 
Pearl  Necklace  the  yellowish  jacket  is  balanced 
by  a yellowish  curtain  in  the  extreme  upper  left 
corner.  All  through  his  work  one  sees  this  sys- 
tem of  balances  or  rappels  of  colour.  Sometimes 
it  is  more  marked  than  at  others,  but  always  he 
manages  to  make  one  blue  balance  another,  and 
if  there  is  a yellow  note  in  one  part,  there  will 

1 80 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


usually  be  a touch  of  yellow  somewhere  else  to 
recall  it. 

Another  instance  of  this  system  of  colour  bal- 
ance is  seen  in  the  Lace-Maker.  The  yellow 
waist  is  balanced  by  the  dull  buff  of  a pigskin 
book  and  by  certain  yellow  leaves  in  the  pat- 
tern on  the  tablecloth.  Again,  the  light  blue  of 
the  lace  pillow  is  balanced  by  the  darker  blue 
of  the  cushion  at  the  side  and  by  the  dull  blue 
of  the  table.  As  in  the  Pearl  Necklace , one  single 
small  sharp  note  of  red  is  introduced  to  key  up 
the  picture. 

In  the  Woman  at  the  Casement  the  buff 
colour  of  the  bodice  is  balanced  by  the  brass 
water  jug  and  by  a jewel  case  covered  with  yel- 
low. The  dark  blue  skirt  has  a rappel  in  a light 
blue  drapery  thrown  across  a chair. 

Art  critics  are  always  speaking  of  a painter’s 
affecting  certain  colours.  One  hears  of  a Nattier 
blue,  a Gainsborough  blue,  the  kind  of  black 
Manet  painted;  and  one  hears  a good  deal  of 
Vermeer’s  special  colours.  Havard  and  Burger 
speak  of  his  lemon  yellow,  his  blue,  his  bronze 
green,  and  his  geranium  red.  Doubtless  he  had 
certain  objects  of  one  or  another  particular  colour 
which  he  liked  to  paint.  Only  of  course  they 

181 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


wfere  not  always  the  same  colour;  they  varied 
in  colour  just  according  as  the  light  fell  on  them. 
Sb  that  one  cannot  say  that  he  had  a particular 
yellow,  a particular  green,  since  they  varied  ac- 
cording to  the  circumstance  of  light. 

Still  it  is  evident  that  he  did  like  certain 
colours  better  than  others.  In  arranging  his 
colour  harmonies  he  selected  certain  objects  of 
certain  colours,  arranged  them  before  him  as 
seemed  right  and  then,  apparently,  painted  them 
just  as  they  appeared. 

His  whole  sentiment  and  arrangement  of  colour 
is  different  from  that  of  any  other  man  we  know 
about.  His  compositions  are  often  based  on  the 
colour  blue  — a colour  which  most  composers  have 
considered  dangerous  to  handle.  It  would  seem 
that  Vermeer,  living  in  Delft  and  doubtless  seeing 
much  of  the  potteries  (there  is  a tradition  that 
he  occasionally  filled  a lost  hour  by  painting 
there  himself),  possibly  acquired  a knowledge, 
a sense  of  the  possibilities  of  blue  in  relation  to 
white  as  a decorative  colour.  One  notes  that 
many  of  his  pictures  are  built  up  on  this  plan  — 
a dull  greyish-white  wall  with  blue  oppositions. 

But  Vermeer  went  further  than  merely  making 
colour  symphonies  after  the  manner  of  Whistler. 

182 


I 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 


THE  LOVE  LETTER 

Collection  ok  the  late  Alfred  Reit,  London 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


He  felt  the  need  of  a cutting  colour,  a comple- 
mentary, in  his  colour  harmonies.  With  that 
strange  intuition  which  he  often  showed  about 
things,  he  seems  to  have  realised  that  yellow,  not 
orange,  was  the  complement  of  the  kind  of  blue 
he  used.  Certain  modern  investigations  into  the 
laws  of  colour  have  affirmed  the  same  thing. 
For  instance,  the  Schistoscope  of  Briicke  gives 
yellow  as  the  complementary  of  lapis-lazuli. 

Given  then  blue,  yellow,  grey,  white  and  black, 
Vermeer  already  had  a good  deal  to  make  a 
beginning  with,  and  his  compositions  are  very 
often  based  on  these  colours  or  tones.  This 
is  the  basis  of  the  Pearl  Necklace , of  the  Woman 
at  the  Casement , of  the  Lace-Maker  and  many 
others. 

Of  course,  a picture  composed  with  only  these 
elements  of  colour  might  look  rather  bare,  and 
probably  that  is  the  criticism  many  people  make 
to  themselves  on  Vermeer’s  colour  composition. 
Vermeer  himself  was  apparently  aware  of  it  and 
had  his  own  ways  of  obviating  this  bareness.  In 
the  Pearl  Necklace , for  instance,  he  discreetly  in- 
troduces a chair  behind  the  table,  which  is  of  a 
dull  greenish  hue  with  blue  and  yellow  touches; 
and  there  is  a little  knot  of  red  ribbon  in  the 

183 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

girl’s  hair,  which  gives  tone  to  the  whole  colour 
composition. 

Again,  as  we  have  often  seen,  he  frequently 
uses  a crumpled  rug  of  red,  with  touches  of  yel- 
low, blue,  white  and  black,  which,  to  use  the  old 
country  phrase,  “cuts  the  grease”  of  the  almost 
too  suave  colour  symphony.  This  rug,  however, 
is  almost  always  placed  for  the  most  part  in 
shadow,  so  that  the  red  tones  are  not  dominant. 

There  are  certain  compositions  in  which  the 
blue  and  yellow  combination  does  not  obtain. 
The  Coquette  is  built  round  the  rose-coloured 
note  of  the  young  lady’s  bodice  and  skirt.  The 
Dresden  Reader  is  all  composed  in  green;  that  is, 
green  is  the  dominant  note  of  the  composition. 
But  one  would  say  that  the  blue  and  yellow  note 
is  by  far  the  most  common  in  his  colour  compo- 
sitions. Sometimes  he  does  not  take  the  trouble 
to  introduce  any  other  positive  colours  to  vary 
the  effect.  The  Young  Girl's  Head  in  the  Hague 
is  just  in  blue  and  yellow.  And  the  Reader  of 
the  Ryjks  Museum  is  almost  entirely  in  blue, 
dull  yellow,  grey  and  black. 

It  is  curious  to  find  as  ultra-modern  a type  as 
Vincent  van  Gogh,  the  Post-Impressionist,  speak- 
ing of  this  picture  with  approval.  He  says  in  a 

184 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


letter:  “Do  you  know  of  a painter  called  Jan 
Van  der  Meer?  He  painted  a very  distinguished 
and  beautiful  Dutch  woman  in  pregnancy.  The 
scale  of  colours  of  this  strange  artist  consists  of 
blue,  lemon  yellow,  pearl  grey,  black  and  white. 
It  is  true  in  the  few  pictures  he  painted  the 
whole  range  of  his  palette  is  to  be  found:  but  it 
is  just  as  characteristic  of  him  to  place  lemon 
yellow,  a dull  blue  and  light  grey  together  as  it 
is  of  Velasquez  to  harmonise  black,  white,  grey 
and  pink.” 

This  use  of  lemon  yellow  by  Vermeer  is  all  the 
more  interesting  because  certain  modern  theorists 
in  colour  combination  have  asserted  that  a clear, 
saturated,  light  yellow  cannot  successfully  be 
used  in  a colour  composition.  The  only  answer 
to  this  is  that  it  is  successfully  used  in  many 
compositions.  Not  only  in  Vermeer  do  we  find 
this  clear  yellow,  but,  employed  in  a different 
way,  we  find  it  in  Terburg  and  in  some  of  Mu- 
rillo’s works. 

Vermeer  is  one  of  the  very  few  painters  who 
seem  to  have  composed  a picture  colouristically; 
that  is,  like  a bouquet  of  flowers,  or  as  one  trims 
a hat.  Most  of  the  Dutch  figure  compositions 
impress  us  as  rather  grim  and  grey  in  tone  with 

185 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

masses  of  colour  put  in  here  and  there  to  liven 
the  whole.  Sometimes  these  colours  seem  happily- 
chosen;  more  often,  perhaps,  they  are  not.  Many 
colour  compositions  look  to  one  as  if  the  colours 
were  assembled  at  random  because  the  painter 
could  not  think  of  anything  else  to  put  there. 
Often,  as  we  have  said,  compositions  are  made 
mostly  in  black,  with  mere  touches  here  and  there 
of  colour  to  brighten  the  whole.  With  Vermeer 
black  is  almost  always  used  only  as  an  accent  to 
give  tone,  rather  than  as  a mass  by  itself. 

One  thinks  in  this  connection  of  three  ways  of 
composing  by  colour:  that  of  the  Venetians,  that 
of  Vermeer  and  that  of  Whistler.  Some  of 
Whistler’s  arrangements  in  colour  are  quite  hand- 
some, but  one  feels  that  he  only  trifled  with  a 
few  colours  at  a time.  His  titles  read  “Arrange- 
ment in  blue  and  gold,”  “Arrangement  in  Purple 
and  Rose,”  “Nocturne  — Opal  and  Silver.” 
Some  of  these  are  quite  beautiful,  but  one  feels 
that  he  perhaps  avoided  a few  of  the  more  diffi- 
cult problems  in  colour  composition. 

The  Venetians,  on  the  other  hand,  composed 
with  a full  bouquet  of  colour;  they  almost  always 
managed  to  get  all  the  important  colours  into 
their  pictures:  a rich  crimson  red,  a cool  yellow, 

1 86 


COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


a peacock  blue,  a warm  bronzed  green,  a rusty 
orange  and  even  a purple  of  sorts,  not  to  speak  of 
plenty  of  white,  and  a little  black  were  there.  And 
they  managed,  somehow,  to  harmonise  all  these 
colours,  — perhaps  because  they  were  not  always 
above  modifying  the  tones  to  suit  their  book. 
They  were  apt  to  proceed  in  a certain  way;  that 
is,  they  often  got  plenty  of  flesh  colour  with 
white  about  it.  Then,  near  by,  would  come  yel- 
low and  perhaps  pink,  red  and  orange  a little 
farther  out  and,  on  the  outskirts,  greens,  blues 
and  purples.  A very  good  example  of  this  sort 
of  thing  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Entombment  of  Ti- 
tian; and  this  is  the  kind  of  arrangement  which 
Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  had  in  mind  when  he  said 
that  blue  could  not  well  be  put  in  the  middle  of 
a picture. 

Of  course,  it  can  be  if  the  man  who  does  it 
knows  his  business  well  enough.  Vermeer  does 
it  constantly  with  considerable  success.  In  the 
Reader  of  the  Rijks  Museum  the  young  woman’s 
dressing  jacket,  which  is  certainly  the  colouristic 
center  of  the  composition,  is  a pale  blue.  Yet 
this  arrangement,  though  rather  unexpected,  is 
quite  beautiful  colouristically.  So  is  the  Woman 
at  the  Casement  of  the  Metropolitan,  which  is  a 

187 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

blue  note  of  colour;  so  are  several  others  which 
one  could  mention.  Merely,  Vermeer  had  a dif- 
ferent conception  of  colour  composition  from  the 
Venetians.  One  would  not  say  it  was  better, 
but  it  was  different  and  it  was  good.  In  at 
least  one  of  his  compositions,  the  Courtesan , he 
achieved  a full  chord  of  colour  with  most  of  the 
important  colours  present  and  made  a beautiful 
arrangement  that  was  yet  quite  different  from 
the  Venetian  idea  of  colour  combination. 

Indeed,  this  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
colour  combinations  to  be  seen  anywhere,  both 
from  its  originality  and  from  its  complete  suc- 
cess. And  one  of  the  interesting  things  about  it 
is  that  the  tones  are  quite  true.  There  is  no 
keying  up  of  one  colour,  no  muting  another  to 
keep  the  colour  scheme.  Apparently  he  made 
his  arrangement  and  then  painted  it  as  much  as 
possible  as  it  appeared.  That  indeed,  is  one  of 
the  things  which  make  most  so-called  colourists 
different  from  him;  they  are  always  painting 
some  colour  note  as  it  does  not  appear,  in  the 
hope  that  it  will  “go”  better  with  the  general 
colour  scheme.  He  apparently  made  his  colour 
arrangement  in  nature  as  well  as  might  be,  and 
then  painted  it  just  as  it  appeared. 

1 88 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A MAID-SERVANT  POURING  OUT  MILK, 
OR  THE  MILK-WOMAN 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 


of  colour  co*tjpc*  iU  & !.rocti  r.bc 
rent  and  it  was  good.  In  at 

dr.tr  • present  and  made  a beautiiul 
at  was  yet  quite  e fferent  from 

idea  of  colour  combination. 

■ . kable 

T3J3Q  30  A33MH3V  KA], 

7U\U  TUO  QVlIflUCH  TVIAVfl38-CIIAM  A 

kamOw-ouIm  3HT  no 

MA0«-IT2MA  .MUSEUM 


scheme.  Apparently 

t hen  ] dated  it  as 

much  as 

reared. 

make  most  so-called 

“go*'  better  > ith  th 

e general 

3e  apparently  made  ! 

is  colour 

tare  as  well  as  mi}  l*t 

be*  and 

as  it  appeared. 

COMPOSITION  AND  DESIGN 


We  have  seen,  then,  that  in  many  ways  his 
composition  was  different  from  that  of  the  men 
about  him.  His  way  of  placing  a figure  on  the 
canvas,  his  manner  of  balancing  the  light  and 
dark  masses  of  his  picture,  and  last,  his  feeling 
for  arrangement  in  colour  were  quite  unique,  and 
after  his  own  fashion. 


189 


OLD  MASTERS 


_ 


> 


CHAPTER  VII 


OLD  MASTERS 

IN  certain  respects  Vermeer’s  work  was  very 
much  of  his  own  time.  Probably  he  himself 
was  not  conscious  that  it  was  in  any  way  mark- 
edly different.  He  painted  the  same  sort  of  sub- 
ject as  everyone  else,  although,  as  we  have 
pointed  out,  he  handled  it  in  a different  way. 
His  technique  was  a good  deal  what  was  taught 
him  by  some  thoroughly  competent  master;  that 
is,  what  one  might  call  his  preliminary  tech- 
nique — his  manner  of  laying  in  a picture.  In 
finishing  it  became  much  more  personal. 

Where  he  varied  from  the  rest  was  in  his  sen- 
timent of  design,  his  intuition  for  colour  values, 
his  indifference  to  anecdotage,  his  bulldog  way  of 
hanging  on  to  a thing  until  it  was  done.  His  feel- 
ing for  edges  was  different  from  the  rest,  although 
it  was  a characteristic  of  all  the  Dutchmen  to 
pay  attention  to  them.  And  then  his  sense  of 
“ values”  — the  relation  of  things  — was  more 

193 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

acute  than  it  has  ever  been  in  any  one  else. 
That,  indeed,  explains  everything.  His  refine- 
ment, his  charm,  his  design,  all  at  the  last  analy- 
sis are  the  result  of  his  very  just  sense  of  the 
right  relation  of  things. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  there  are  certain 
points  of  resemblance  in  Vermeer’s  work  to  De 
Hooch,  Terburg,  Metzu  and  Maes,  both  in  gen- 
eral and  to  each  one  in  particular.  All  these 
men  painted,  roughly  speaking,  the  same  sort  of 
picture.  The  conversation-piece  which  the  Dutch 
burgher  so  loved  was  to  these  artists  at  the  same 
time  a delight  and  a bread-winner.  Superficially, 
one  might  suppose  all  these  pictures  to  be  about 
the  same.  It  is  as  a white  man  is  apt  to  think 
all  negroes  look  alike.  But  of  course  on  exami- 
nation one  finds  that  all  these  painters  differed 
enormously,  one  from  the  other,  in  point  of 
view,  sentiment  about  nature,  arrangement,  de- 
sign, colour  and  handling.  It  only  brings  home 
to  us  the  fact  that  no  two  men  are  ever  the 
least  bit  alike  in  essentials,  however  much  they 
may  resemble  each  other  in  details  and  in  the 
superficial  aspect  of  things. 

Terburg  was  primarily  a stylist  and  a self- 
conscious  stylist.  Vermeer  of  course  was  a stylist 

194 


OLD  MASTERS 


as  well  — but  one  would  guess  an  unconscious 
stylist.  What  makes  one  think  this  is  that 
whenever  he  really  tried  to  be  particularly  “ sty- 
lish ” he  inevitably  — if  one  may  use  the  current 
phrase — “fell  down.”  Terburg’s  little  figures  are 
always  painted  in  a stylistic  way;  in  that  is,  at 
the  same  time,  one  of  their  merits  and  one  of 
their  particular  failings.  One  has  only  to  look  at 
the  way  in  which  he  painted  the  tips  of  the 
fingers  to  see  that  he  was  a mannerist.  He  had 
his  little  way  of  doing  things;  at  the  last  moment 
he  made  things  as  he  liked  to  have  them  look 
instead  of  as  they  did  look.  Vermeer,  too,  was 
something  of  a mannerist  in  his  way  of  starting 
things;  but  the  more  he  worked  on  them  the  less 
mannered  they  became,  so  that  his  most  highly 
finished  works  are  miracles  of  unprejudiced  ren- 
dering. No  matter  what  mood  influenced  him  at 
the  start,  his  passion  for  rendering  the  aspect  of 
things  conquered  in  the  end. 

In  just  one  instance  did  Terburg  paint  a pic- 
ture like  Vermeer.  That  is  the  Musician  of  the 
Berlin  Gallery.  It  is  so  much  like  Vermeer  in 
composition  that  at  first  one  is  tempted  to  think 
it  has  been  attributed  to  the  wrong  man.  But 
when  one  examines  it  carefully  one  perceives  that 

195 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


the  manner  of  making  it  is  quite  different.  Still 
it  is  enough  like  to  make  one  wonder  whether 
Terburg  had  ever  seen  any  of  Vermeer’s  work. 

With  Metzu  it  was  rather  different.  He  may 
have  meant  to  be  a stylist  but  a naif  streak  in 
him  kept  him  from  it.  He  was  an  executant. 
There  is  not  another  man  in  the  history  of  art 
who  could  handle  his  brushes  more  skilfully  than 
he.  He  did  not  always  see  rightly;  or  rather, 
one  feels  that  he  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  look 
at  a thing  over  and  over  again  until  he  thor- 
oughly understood  it,  as  did  Vermeer.  He  had 
his  sound  yet  brilliant  technique,  which  sufficed 
to  render  quite  quickly,  ably  and  plausibly  any- 
thing he  looked  at;  and  with  such  a result  he 
usually  seems  to  have  remained  satisfied.  He 
was  not  willing,  as  was  Vermeer,  to  endanger 
the  whole  brilliancy  of  his  handling  by  perpetual 
repaintings.  He  seems  to  have  finished  up  the 
thing  quite  skilfully,  rather  quickly,  and  to  have 
been  satisfied  with  that  result.  His  manner  of 
laying  on  paint  was  of  the  slippery  fused  sort, 
and  he  seems  to  have  been  unwilling  to  endanger 
the  fused  surface  which  he  gained  in  this  way. 

Also,  he  was  not  above  slightly  distorting  his 
“values”  when  it  suited  his  book.  In  the  Money- 

196 


Gerard  Terburg 


THE  CONCERT 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


OLD  MASTERS 


Changer  of  the  Boston  Museum,  which  is  per- 
haps his  finest  work,  he  has  deliberately  made 
white  near  the  window  darker  than  the  white  in 
the  middle  of  the  picture  — so  as  to  centralise 
the  interest.  Vermeer  could  always  achieve  the 
same  centralising  of  interest  without  modifying 
the  values  at  all. 

At  one  time  Metzu  seemed  in  train  to  do  work 
as  good  as  Vermeer.  Certain  of  his  pictures  sug- 
gest Vermeer  very  much,  and,  curiously  enough, 
these  are  ones  painted  a little  before  Vermeer’s 
finest  period.  But  Metzu  fell  off  from  this  high 
standard,  so  that  his  later  works  are  a little  lack- 
ing in  the  same  sort  of  interest.  “Unstable  as 
water,  thou  shalt  not  excel.” 

As  far  as  we  can  judge,  Vermeer  went  right  on 
from  picture  to  picture,  painting  them  better  all 
the  time.  If  it  be  true,  as  one  feels  from  in- 
terior evidence,  that  the  Studio  was  his  latest 
work,  then  his  latest  work  was  his  best. 

Between  Vermeer  and  De  Hooch  there  are  cer- 
tain very  strong  elements  of  likeness.  The  two 
men  lived  in  Delft  at  the  same  time  for  a period 
covering  at  least  three  years,  possibly  more.  It 
seems  impossible  that  they  should  not  have 
known  each  other,  both  being,  as  we  know  they 

197 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

were,  members  of  the  Guild  of  St.  Luke.  Doubt- 
less they  were  both  influenced  by  Fabritius,  and 
doubtless,  too,  all  three  must  have  interchanged 
thoughts  and  views  about  art.  Many  of  De 
Hooch’s  pictures  are,  of  course,  magnificent  crea- 
tions, and  he  shared  with  Vermeer  his  passion  for 
painting  the  complicated  lights  of  an  interior. 
But  one  of  the  points  in  which  De  Hooch  was 
the  inferior  of  the  other  man  was  that  he  did 
did  not  get  his  values  so  well.  He  was  capable 
of  distorting  them  — apparently  deliberately.  In 
certain  of  his  pictures  the  sunlit  street,  seen 
through  an  open  door,  comes  darker  than  certain 
lights  in  the  interior,  and  this  we  know  could 
not  be  true.  Also,  it  seems  just  to  say  that 
Vermeer  never  could  have  done  this.  In  all  his 
pictures  after  he  had  got  thoroughly  under  way 
we  do  not  find  a false  value.  This  unerring  sense 
of  values  is,  of  course,  one  of  Vermeer’s  half- 
dozen  unapproachable  qualities.  It  is  one  of  the 
things  that  make  him  definitely  superior  to  the 
other  Dutch  painters.  It  cannot  be  too  much 
insisted  on,  for  when  one  is  filled  with  this  idea 
one  has  begun  to  understand  Vermeer.  When 
one  says  “values”  one  includes  colour  values.  It  is 
the  understanding  of  values;  that  is,  the  relation 

198 


OLD  MASTERS 


of  things  in  light  and  shade,  colour  drawing  and 
edges  that  makes  Vermeer  — that  makes  him  the 
unique  man  he  is. 

It  may  seem  too  much  praise  to  mention  Maes 
in  the  same  breath  with  Vermeer.  But  the  point 
of  contact  between  the  two  men  is  that  both 
have  been  said  to  have  come  under  French  in- 
fluences. In  Maes’  case  this  is  evident  enough. 
No  one  could  look  at  some  of  his  latest  portraits 
and  not  observe  their  likeness  in  style  and  tech- 
nique to  many  of  the  portraits  then  being  done 
by  the  master  painters  of  the  court  of  the  four- 
teenth Louis. 

With  Vermeer,  if  there  were  any  influence  of 
this  sort,  it  shows  in  a much  more  subtle  way. 
Every  one  in  Holland  was  reacting  against  the 
messy  empate  manner  of  Rembrandt,  and  Ver- 
meer was  of  the  number  — apparently  one  of  the 
leaders.  So  that  his  surface  grew  smoother  and 
smoother  as  the  years  went  on.  Dr.  Valentiner 
goes  so  far  as  to  call  it  glassy. 

Certainly  it  was  very  smooth,  but  this  may 
well  have  come  about  because  Vermeer  perceived, 
as  any  thoughtful  painter  is  bound  to  discover, 
that  a picture  begun  with  loaded  or  empate  sur- 
face cannot  be  changed,  repainted,  or  retouched 

199 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

with  the  same  ease  as  can  a smooth  surface.  As 
the  essence  of  Vermeer’s  technique  lay  in  con- 
stant repaintings,  it  seems  natural  enough  that 
he  should  have  chosen  to  keep  his  surface  in  a 
state  that  would  easily  admit  of  repainting. 
Also  he  doubtless  noticed  that  there  were  no 
paint  strokes  to  be  seen  in  nature;  and  we  feel 
that  he  tried  to  make  his  pictures  look  like 
nature. 

One  feels  then  that  Maes  gave  in  to  French 
technique  because  it  was  fashionable;  that  if 
Vermeer  was  influenced  by  it,  it  was  because  he 
found  it  more  logical  and  intelligent. 

A great  deal  has  been  said  by  Burger  and 
others  of  the  probable  or  possible  influence  of 
Rembrandt  upon  Vermeer.  But  it  is  hard  to  see 
that  they  make  out  a very  strong  case.  Rem- 
brandt was  such  an  overwhelming  individuality 
that  men  tend  to  attribute  the  excellencies  of 
other  men  to  his  influence  merely  because  he  was 
so  great.  The  great  point  of  likeness  between 
Vermeer  and  Rembrandt  is  their  common  inter- 
est in  light  and  shade  — or  chiaroscuro.  It  is 
true  that  they  were  both  thus  interested,  but  in- 
terested in  entirely  different  ways.  Rembrandt 
liked  chiaroscuro  because  by  his  particular  use  of 

200 


OLD  MASTERS 


it  he  was  enabled  to  make  things  different  from 
the  way  they  really  did  look;  that  is,  he  made 
them  mysterious.  Vermeer  was  interested  in 
light  and  shade  because,  as  used  by  him,  it  helped 
to  make  his  pictures  look  more  like  nature.  It 
was  as  statistics  help  a liar  to  lie  and  an  honest 
man  to  tell  the  truth. 

The  whole  attitude  of  the  two  men  before 
nature  differed.  Rembrandt  apparently  wished 
that  nature  looked  different.  Vermeer,  one  would 
guess,  was  glad  that  nature  looked  as  she  looked. 

Rembrandt  seemed  not  satisfied  with  the  colour 
of  things  and  so  changed  it  to  suit  his  desire. 
Vermeer’s  particular  merit  lies  in  the  fact  that  he 
tried  to  render  the  beauty  of  colour  that  hap- 
pened to  be  before  his  eyes.  The  only  thing  in 
which  Rembrandt  seems  to  have  tried  to  be  a 
realist  was  in  the  matter  of  drawing.  And  this 
only  shows  because  he  succeeded  in  making  nude 
drawings  of  poor  squalid  humanity  more  hideous 
than  it  really  is.  Vermeer  did  not  flatter,  but  did 
not  degrade. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  Rembrandt  was  not  a 
very  great  man;  one  feels  he  was.  Occasionally 
in  portraits  of  himself  he  attains  to  astonishing 
verity  in  parts.  But  he  seems  dissatisfied  with 


201 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

life  and  with  the  aspects  of  life,  and  he  either 
made  it  as  he  would  like  to  have  it  or  carica- 
tured its  infirmities. 

Vermeer  seems  to  have  loved  life;  he  chose  the 
harder  part  in  art  — to  make  things  beautiful, 
quiet,  serene.  It  is  a commonplace  that  it  is 
easier  to  write  an  artistic  story  of  how  the  course 
of  true  love  never  did  run  smooth,  than  to  write 
the  story  of  a happy  love,  so  that  it  shall  be  in- 
teresting and  artistic.  Vermeer’s  story  was  the 
harder  to  tell  — the  simple  story  of  health  and 
happiness  — of  light  and  life  and  love. 

Rembrandt  could  paint  a lot  of  simple  archers 
so  that  they  looked  like  a crew  of  bandits.  Ver- 
meer could  paint  a simple  little  Dutch  lady  tying 
pearls  about  her  neck  so  that  one  saw  the  beauty 
of  simple  things. 

What  really  made  Vermeer  different  from  all 
these  others  was  the  absolute  impersonality  of 
his  vision.  One  feels  in  the  work  of  Terburg,  for 
instance,  that  he  sometimes  made  things  as  he 
would  like  to  have  them,  or  sometimes  in  a way 
that  was  comparatively  easy  to  do,  and,  having 
done  so,  tried  to  persuade  himself  that  nature 
looked  so.  There  is  in  human  beings  the  need  to 


202 


OLD  MASTERS 


justify  themselves  to  themselves.  One  sees  this 
in  students,  who,  having  made  a thing  wrong, 
try  to  persuade  themselves  that  so  it  was.  Even 
artists,  alas,  are  not  wholly  free  from  this  defect. 
Self  criticism  is  the  most  uncommon  and  most 
difficult  of  virtues.  Yet  Vermeer  seems  to  have 
had  it  — or  rather,  he  saw  so  straight  and  looked 
so  persistently  that  it  seems  to  have  been  a 
pleasure  to  him  to  correct  what  was  wrong  in  his 
work.  One  knows  this  because  the  things  he  had 
just  wiped  in  are  not  especially  good,  while  the 
things  he  has  worked  over  are  miracles. 

It  resulted  from  this  impersonality  of  vision 
and  of  intention  that  Vermeer’s  work  became 
more  vitally  personal  than  that  of  any  man. 
There  is  the  humour  of  it.  For  in  a country 
where  all  were  blind,  the  seeing  man  would  be 
king.  And  Vermeer  could  see.  If  ever  any  man 
in  the  history  of  the  world  could  see  superlatively 
well,  he  was  that  man.  All  the  Dutchmen  ex- 
celled in  observation,  but  he  looked  harder  and 
oftener  than  the  rest.  And  from  this  very  in- 
tensity of  vision  he  was  obliged  to  invent  a per- 
sonal manner  that  would  fittingly  render  what 
he  saw.  Moreover,  looking  oftener  and  harder 
than  the  rest,  he  saw  that  things  looked  slightly 

203 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

different  than  men  had  supposed.  If  they  looked 
different,  of  course  his  pictures,  rightly  rendered, 
must  also  look  different  from  the  rest;  and  so, 
indeed,  they  do. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  are  really  only  two 
kinds  of  painting:  good  painting  and  bad  painting. 
The  man  who  said  this  thought  that  good  paint- 
ing meant  painting  things  the  way  they  looked 
to  him;  bad  painting  meant  any  other  kind. 
This  may  or  may  not  be  so;  but  if  it  be  so,  then 
all  good  painters  have  a certain  relationship 
through  the  fact  that  their  works  resemble  na- 
ture. As  supreme  examples  of  these  good  painters 
one  thinks  of  men  so  different  as  Da  Vinci,  Ti- 
tian, Velasquez,  Chardin  and  a few  others.  These 
were  men  who  were  interested  in  painting  the 
aspect  of  nature,  — who  did  not  seek  to  twist 
her  about  and  change  her,  but  who  were  satisfied 
so  far  as  in  them  lay  to  paint  the  thing  as  they 
saw  it.  It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  work  of 
these  men  with  Vermeer.  It  may  be  that  we 
shall  be  able  to  pick  out  certain  qualities  common 
to  all  of  them. 

Da  Vinci  is  not  always  thought  of  as  a realist, 
but  one  only  has  to  read  his  book  on  drawing 

204 


Jan  V. ermeer  of  Delft 

ALLEGORY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague;  lent  by 
Dr.  A.  Bredius 


OLD  MASTERS 


and  painting  to  see  that  he  thought  of  himself 
as  one,  and  that  he  thought  pictures  should  re- 
produce the  appearance  of  nature.  There  is  no 
talk  of  suggestiveness;  his  constant  appeal  is 
that  one  shall  observe  things  and  make  them 
the  way  they  look.  For  instance,  he  says  if  a 
man  painting  outdoors  wants  to  find  the  real 
colour  of  the  landscape  he  should  put  up  a bit  of 
glass  and  match  the  tones  of  the  objects  behind 
it.  One  could  hardly  be  more  objective  than 
that. 

The  point  in  common  between  Da  Vinci  and 
Vermeer  is  chiaroscuro.  Da  Vinci  might  almost 
be  said  to  have  invented  it.  For  before  his  time 
it  practically  did  not  exist  in  art;  while  some  of 
his  exercises  in  it  are  among  the  most  complete 
that  have  ever  been  made.  And  since  his  time 
it  has  always  been  one  of  the  measures  of  a 
painter’s  greatness.  Da  Vinci,  by  the  aid  of 
chiaroscuro , showed  painters  how  to  make  things 
“like.”  Nowadays  some  people  seem  to  think  it 
a base  thing  that  things  should  seem  like.  But 
Da  Vinci  did  not  think  so,  if  one  may  believe 
his  written  word,  and  his  work  was  particularly 
admired  by  his  contemporaries  because  it  looked 
so  much  like  nature. 


205 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

We  cannot  compare  Vermeer’s  interiors  with 
anything  Da  Vinci  has  done,  but  there  is  a dis- 
tinct likeness  in  chiaroscuro  between  Vermeer’s 
two  pictures  of  heads  of  young  girls  and  the 
Monna  Lisa  and  other  heads  by  Da  Vinci.  The 
Arenburg  head  is  perhaps  superficially  more 
like  Da  Vinci,  but  it  looks  as  if  it  had  been 
“skinned”  — or  over-cleaned.  The  head  at  the 
Hague  has  precisely  the  Da  Vinci  quality  of 
light  sliding  across  the  forms  of  the  head;  of 
forms  indicated  by  the  play  of  the  light  and 
shade  rather  than  by  sculpturesque  brush  marks 
made  in  the  direction  of  the  planes. 

It  is  interesting  in  connection  with  this  matter 
of  chiaroscuro  to  note  that  it  had  been  a matter 
of  the  most  profound  interest  to  painters  for 
more  than  a hundred  years  before  Rembrandt’s 
time.  Many  people  speak  as  if  Rembrandt  had 
invented  light  and  shade,  — that  is,  as  if  no  one 
had  specialised  in  it  before  his  time.  Apart  from 
Da  Vinci,  Correggio  had  carried  it  well  up  to 
its  legitimate  possibilities  long  before  Rembrandt. 
Caravaggio’s  whole  school  was  based  on  it;  and 
the  Eclectics,  more  influenced  than  they  cared  to 
admit  by  Caravaggio,  taught  it  in  their  schools. 
Holland,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  almost 

206 


OLD  MASTERS 


wholly  under  the  influence  of  various  phases  of 
Italian  art,  and  chiaroscuro  was  one  of  these.  It 
was  one  of  the  things  that  was  taught  in  the 
Schools,  and  Rembrandt  learned  about  it  just  like 
any  other.  It  is  true  that  he  made  great  case  of 
it,  carrying  it  beyond  its  proper  limitations.  But 
anybody  else  was  at  liberty  to  paint  by  light  and 
shade  in  a truthful  manner  as  did  Vermeer  with- 
out any  particular  thought  of  Rembrandt.  If 
Rembrandt  had  never  lived,  chiaroscuro  would  still 
have  been  a characteristic  of  Dutch  painters. 

An  enthusiastic  writer  has  called  Vermeer  the 
Titian  of  Holland,  and,  while  there  is  no  super- 
ficial resemblance  between  the  two  men,  still,  if 
one  wanted  to  justify  this  saying,  one  might  say 
that  Vermeer  was  the  greatest  colourist  of  Hol- 
land; that  his  chiaroscuro  was  based  like  Titian’s, 
on  the  study  of  the  colour  of  the  shadow  as  well 
as  of  the  light,  and  that  his  compositions  were 
conceived  with  a view  to  colour  arrangement  as 
well  as  being  designs  in  line  and  light  and  dark. 
We  do  not  get  the  true  Titian,  the  man  himself, 
who  had  certain  analogies  to  Vermeer,  until  late 
in  his  life.  He  had  to  shake  off  the  archaic 
school  training  of  the  Bellinis  and,  still  more  diffi- 
cult to  outgrow,  the  overpowering  influence  of  so 

207 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

great  a genius  as  Giorgione,  before  he  began  to 
express  his  true  self  — to  paint  things  something 
as  he  really  saw  them.  Toward  the  end  of  his 
life  he  began  to  paint  “blonde,”  that  is,  to 
note  the  cool  over-tones  of  colours  and  Vermeer, 
Velasquez,  Chardin  and  all  men  who  feel  colour 
values  paint  blonde.  The  Rape  of  Europa  in  the 
Gardner  Museum  is  a good  example  of  this  sort 
of  vision.  He  began,  too,  to  paint  by  the  spot 
instead  of  along  the  line,  and  it  is  most  instruc- 
tive and  interesting  to  study  his  Adam  and  Eve 
at  the  Prado  in  connection  with  Rubens’  copy. 

Rubens  in  his  copy,  which  hangs  near  by, 
cheerfully  commits  all  the  solecisms  which  Titian 
had  spent  a lifetime  in  learning  to  avoid.  One 
feels  that  in  his  old  age  Titian  came  to 

realize  the  painter’s  joy  in  trying  to  paint  the 
thing  as  he  sees  it, — and  Vermeer  knew  this 
joy  as  well. 

When  one  studies  the  Toilet  of  Diana , particu- 
larly noting  the  way  the  back  of  one  of  the 
nymphs  is  painted,  one  perceives  a marked  re- 
semblance to  some  of  Velasquez’s  work.  The 
technique  of  this  bit  is  not  unlike  the  tech- 
nique of  the  Forge  of  V ulcan.  This  is  not  to  say 
that  Vermeer  had  any  particular  thought  of 

208 


OLD  MASTERS 


Velasquez  while  painting  it,  although  it  is  known 
that  Terburg  studied  Velasquez’  work,  and  in 
so  small  a place  as  Holland  it  is  likely  that  some 
word  about  the  paintings  of  the  great  Spaniard 
must  have  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth  in  the 
studios.  It  is  just  possible  that  Bramer,  who 
was  a citizen  of  the  world,  may  have  known 
something  of  Velasquez’  painting.  At  all  events, 
there  is  this  distinct  resemblance  in  the  Diana 
picture,  and,  though  none  of  Vermeer’s  other  pic- 
tures have  such  a resemblance,  they  are  painted 
in  Velasquez’s  mood  — of  rendering  the  beauty  of 
the  light  and  life  he  saw  before  him.  When  ar- 
tists discuss  who  the  greatest  painter,  as  a painter, 
may  have  been,  they  always  end  with  Velas- 
quez and  Vermeer.  These  two  men  more  than 
any  one  else  seem  to  have  thought  that  — 

i 

“ If  eyes  were  ever  made  for  seeing 
Then  beauty  is  its  own  excuse  for  being.” 

They  seem  to  have  realised  that  if  a thing 
were  beautiful  it  was  beautiful  because  it  looked 
just  as  it  did  look;  and  that  if  one  tried  to  ex- 
tract the  quintessence  of  some  particular  flavour 
the  unique  beauty  of  the  whole  thing  was  apt  to 
evaporate  in  the  process. 

209 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Velasquez  also  painted  blonde,  and  his  only 
particular  weakness  seems  to  have  been  that  he 
permitted  himself  to  modify  the  values  as  in  the 
case  before  cited  of  the  incandescent  metal  of 
the  Forge  of  Vulcan.  He  seems,  at  times,  too,  to 
have  used  a sort  of  black  soup  — the  Spartan 
remedy  — to  pull  things  together.  He  told  the 
truth,  but  not  quite  the  whole  truth,  and  not 
always  nothing  but  the  truth.  It  is  hard  to 
imagine  a young  painter  learning  anything  but 
good  from  Vermeer;  one  only  has  to  look  at  Del 
Mazo’s  work,  fascinating  as  it  is,  to  realise  what 
Velasquez  run  wild  might  come  to. 

When  one  looks  at  Chardin’s  delightful  little 
interiors  one  thinks  of  all  the  little  Dutchmen  — 
perhaps  of  Vermeer  as  much  as  any.  But  it  is 
really  in  studying  his  still  life  that  any  likeness 
Chardin  may  have  had  to  Vermeer  disengages  it- 
self. When  Chardin  painted  still  life  he  seems  to 
have  dared  to  make  things  just  as  they  appeared. 
In  his  interiors,  he  made  concessions  to  the  taste 
of  the  times  in  things  like  the  proportions  of  the 
figures,  the  drawing  of  the  extremities;  and  he 
seems  to  have  rubbed  some  sort  of  brown  stuff  on 
for  “tone.” 

Before  one  blames  him,  one  must  remember 

210 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

A LADY  AND  A MAID-SERVANT 

Collection  or  James  Simon,  Berlin 


OLD  MASTERS 


the  difficulty  of  painting  objectively  as  he  did, 
amid  a horde  of  artists  who  painted  de  chic. 

Indeed,  it  is  a mystery  that  such  a modest  little 
stone-crop  of  a flower  as  was  Chardin’s  talent 
should  have  bloomed  at  all  in  the  over  rich  soil 
of  the  garden  of  eighteenth  century  art. 

Chardin’s  still  life,  then,  has  something  of  the 
impersonality  that  marks  Vermeer’s  work,  and  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  a picture  by  Vermeer’s 
master,  or  friend,  Fabritius,  called  the  Goldfinch, 
is  remarkably  like  Chardin  in  quality. 


21 1 


I lill 


' 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


■ ■ 


CHAPTER  VIII 

VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 
LTHOUGH  Vermeer  has  been  a good  deal 


talked  about  of  late,  it  may  be  said  that  his 
influence  over  modern  artists  is  only  just  begin- 
ning. It  is  true  that  to  certain  artists  his  work 
has  for  a long  time  been  very  important  and  in- 
deed a fruitful  source  of  inspiration.  But  to  the 
uninitiated  his  name  is  hardly  known,  his  work 
a closed  book.  Indeed,  since  beginning  this  book 
the  writer  has  met  with  various  persons,  sup- 
posedly well  informed  in  matters  of  art,  who 
have  expressed  a complete  ignorance  as  to  who 
Vermeer  might  be.  Of  course,  to  collectors  his 
work  is  becoming  well  known.  The  mere  cost  of 
one  of  his  pictures  makes  it  a matter  of  interest 
to  them.  The  fact  that  there  are  only  six 
or  seven  of  his  works  extant  in  itself  gives 
them  a certain  value.  And  among  artists  his 
name  is  doubtless  better  known  than  among  the 


215 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

simple-minded  laity.  At  the  same  time  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  great  mass  of  so-called  art 
lovers  make  very  little  case  of  him;  his  star  has 
not  as  yet  swum  into  their  rather  purblind  ken. 

Still,  it  seems  evident  that  his  influence  will 
increase,  and  the  reasons  for  this  belief  are  these: 
at  present  there  are  two  markedly  different 
schools  or  modes  of  thought  in  painting.  One 
gives  itself  to  expression  of  quaint  conceits  or 
fancies  done  in  a fashion  more  or  less  vaguely 
suggestive  of  nature;  the  other  is  interested  in 
giving  the  exact  appearance  of  nature  — making 
it  like,  in  short.  For  these  last  Vermeer  is  a 
master,  — his  name  a rallying-cry.  To  them  his 
work  seems  in  many  ways  the  nearest  approach 
to  truth  that  has  been  made. 

His  attitude  toward  nature  — his  point  of  view, 
in  short  — seems  to  these  painters  the  correct 
attitude;  his  manner  of  rendering  most  logical. 
Vermeer,  in  his  simple,  doubtless  unconscious  way, 
has  met  and  solved  some  of  the  most  difficult 
problems  of  the  interior.  It  is  true  that  his 
study  of  colour  values  is  hardly  so  acute  as  that 
of  some  of  our  modern  men.  His  sense  of  colour 
values  was  instinctive;  he  had  the  intuition  of 
colour,  rather  than  the  highly  trained  thought-out 

216 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


conscious  method  which  the  more  advanced  modern 
interior  painters  use. 

Still  Vermeer  had  enough  of  this  perception  of 
colour  values  to  make  the  men  who  paint  in- 
teriors at  the  present  day  rise  up  and  call  him 
blessed.  He  made  up  for  any  weakness  in  struc- 
ture, or  lack  of  comprehension  of  colour  theory 
by  simply  looking  at  the  thing  before  him  so 
hard  and  so  often  that  he  came  at  the  end  to 
understand  it  to  the  full.  And  what  one  under- 
stands one  can  render.  Certainly  no  one  ever 
rendered  the  aspect  of  nature  more  convincingly 
than  he. 

Even  twenty  years  ago  there  were  men  who 
painted  more  or  less  in  Vermeer’s  manner.  Claus 
Meyer,  the  German  painter,  seems  to  have  studied 
his  work  quite  carefully,  though  unfortunately 
the  qualities  in  Meyer’s  work  which  remind  one 
of  Vermeer  are  rather  superficial  ones.  It  is 
more  in  the  arrangement  of  his  rooms  and  the 
costumes  of  his  models  that  he  recalls  Vermeer 
than  in  his  colour  quality  or  values. 

It  is  said  that  Vermeer’s  View  of  Delft  has  had 
a very  distinct  and  marked  effect  on  the  younger 
school  of  Dutch  landscape  painters.  Indeed,  one 
has  seen  pictured  silhouettes  of  Dutch  houses  re- 

217 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

fleeted  against  a canal  that  remind  one  a good 
deal  of  this  same  View  of  Delft.  Certainly  Ver- 
meer’s influence  is  a healthy  one  — far  healthier 
than  that  of  Israels  or  of  Rembrandt.  A whole 
school  of  landscape  painting  might  have  been 
built  around  Vermeer’s  work  in  his  own  day. 
And  even  now,  when  landscape  painters  have  dis- 
covered many  things,  there  is  still  much  to  be 
learned  from  study  of  his  work. 

As  we  have  hinted  before,  one  of  the  things 
that  interests  us  in  Vermeer,  apart  from  his 
many  perfections,  is  his  intensely  modern  atti- 
tude, his  point  of  view  about  painting  — about 
composition,  colour  values,  “edges”  and  many 
of  the  other  things  in  which  modern  artists 
particularly  concern  themselves.  No  one,  of 
course,  knows  definitely  anything  about  what 
Vermeer  thought  or  tried  to  do.  But  from  the 
study  of  his  works  one  gains  a pretty  good  idea 
of  what  his  intention  and  point  of  view  was.  He 
had  the  modern  interest  in  values  — and  this  in- 
cludes colour  values  — to  the  full.  We  cannot 
tell  if  he  thought  himself  different  from  other 
men  in  his  effort,  but  it  is  evident  enough  that 
his  effort  was  different  — that  he  tried  for  other 
things  than  the  men  about  him.  More  than  any 

218 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


of  the  rest  of  them,  he  interested  himself  in  paint- 
ing the  apparition  before  him. 

One  particularly  modern  thing  about  Vermeer’s 
art  is  his  avoidance  of  story-telling.  Of  course, 
there  is  in  every  one  of  his  pictures,  except  the 
Studio , a thin  thread  of  anecdote,  but  it  is  of  the 
most  tenuous  sort.  Vermeer  could  hardly  avoid,  in 
the  Holland  of  his  day,  some  sort  of  story.  But 
one  easily  sees  that  it  did  not  particularly  inter- 
est him  and  that  the  design,  the  colour  scheme 
and  the  rendering  were  the  elements  that  most 
engaged  his  attention.  In  Jan  Steen’s  work,  for 
instance,  the  anecdote  was  almost  everything. 
Even  with  Terburg  and  with  Metzu  it  was  quite 
an  important  element.  De  Hooch,  indeed,  is  al- 
most the  only  other  Dutchman  who  seemed  so 
indifferent  as  Vermeer  to  anecdote  for  the  sake  of 
anecdote.  Vermeer  came  as  near  to  having  his 
little  figures  do  nothing  at  all  as  one  well  could 
unless  they  sat  with  folded  hands.  A young  girl 
reads  a letter  or  writes  one,  or  receives  it  from 
the  hand  of  a serving-maid,  — that  accounts  for  a 
half-dozen  of  his  pictures. 

A young  woman  plays  with  pearls  about  her 
neck,  she  opens  a casement,  she  pours  some  milk 
from  a jug  into  a bowl,  she  takes  a glass  of  wine 

219 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


from  a gallant’s  hand,  — these  are  the  trifling 
anecdotes  that  inform  a few  more  of  his  pic- 
tures. In  each  one  there  is  just  enough  anecdote 
to  interest  those  who  love  a story,  but  there  is 
never  so  intricate  an  intrigue  as  to  endanger 
the  effectiveness  of  his  piece. 

Vermeer  was  a precursor  in  many  things,  and  in 
none  more  than  in  the  way  in  which  he  antici- 
pated the  modern  point  of  view.  If  ever  a man 
believed  in  art  for  art’s  sake  it  was  he.  There 
never  was  a more  definite  example  of  art  for  art’s 
sake  than  the  Studio.  If  the  picture  had  not 
been  well  made  it  would  have  been  absolutely 
nothing.  Being  as  it  is,  well  made,  it  is  one  of 
the  few  flawless  masterpieces  of  painting.  Even 
where  there  is  a trifling  anecdote  one  feels  that 
the  composition,  the  aspect  and  the  rendering 
were  everything  to  him. 

He  anticipated  the  modern  idea  of  impersonal- 
ity in  art  which  has  perhaps  gone  further  in  these 
days  in  novel  writing  than  it  has  in  painting. 
His  pictures  are  personal  because  they  are  made 
by  a very  great  man;  but  the  personality  is  a 
by-product.  There  is  absolutely  no  effort  to 
make  them  personal.  He  makes  no  comment  on 


220 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A YOUNG  LADY  WITH  A PEARL  NECKLACE 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


AN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

* gallant’*  hand,  these  aft 

1 cadi  one  there  is  just  enough  anecdote 
who  Jove  a story,  but  there  is 
intru  tic  an  intrigue  as  to  endanger 

•,ne  r tjore  m the  way  in  which  he  antici- 

T'iwiaa  3Q  *331/337  *Al 
3:>AJ2D3H  J 51 A 33  A HT1W  YCIAJ  D/AJOY  A 

ytu*aU  .wuaauM  HJiaaais3  xau/CA 

.<  i iai.<le  t wouid  have  been  absolute^ 


tfide,  it  is  one  of 

c*  r,  ma?  e t nieces 

of  painting; . Even 

where  h 

the  corf . 

ae*  of  imper  onai- 

rh-  ha-  perhaps  -one  further  in  these 

it  ha*  in  painting. 

me  they  made 

r>  .eat  man;  hut 

rite  personality  is  a 

by-ptfcdu 

uxcly  no  effort  to 

ket  no  comment  on 

VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


the  picture.  One  does  not  see  by  his  composition 
what  he  thought  of  it  all. 

Indeed,  in  this  matter  Vermeer  was  plus  Royal- 
iste  que  le  Roi.  No  modern  painter  has  as  yet 
achieved  his  absolute  impersonality  of  rendering. 
In  almost  all  of  them  one  perceives  a liking  for 
certain  tricks  of  handling  — for  certain  aspects  of 
paint.  Vermeer,  it  is  true,  had  certain  very 
marked  mannerisms,  but  they  always  seem  to 
spring  from  his  desire  to  give  the  exact  aspect  of 
nature.  Instead  of  one  of  his  mannerisms  being 
a trick  repeated  because  he  did  it  rather  well,  it 
is,  like  his  pointille  touch,  always  some  expedient 
which  might  help  more  exactly  to  render  the  pre- 
cise aspect  of  nature. 

In  certain  respects  Vermeer  is  distinctly  the 
superior  of  any  modern  painter;  in  others  it  is 
not  so  much  that  he  was  inferior  as  that  he 
did  not  concern  himself  with  those  particular 
things.  The  whole  matter  of  disintegrated  col- 
our, which  perturbs  modern  artists  even  in  the 
painting  of  interiors,  is  a closed  book  to  him. 
He  simply  did  not  have  to  do  anything  about  it, 
since  the  theory  of  colour  was  not  then  invented. 
He  arrived  at  his  results  without  considering  it; 
unless  one  feels  his  habit  of  underpainting  with 


221 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

blue  and  painting  over  with  warm  tones  to  have 
something  to  do  with  it.  Probably  almost  all 
good  painters  even  before  Chevreuil  and  Rood 
have  in  some  way  used  disintegrated  colour  em- 
pirically without  having  any  particular  theory 
about  the  matter.  Underpainting  in  blue  or 
green  or  red,  glazing  and  scumbling,  have  all  been 
ways  by  which  the  elder  painters  arrived  at  re- 
sults somewhat  similar  to  some  of  our  im- 
pressionistic achievements.  In  these  ways  Ver- 
meer, too,  doubtless  worked,  but  doubtless,  also, 
he  was  unconscious  of  any  scientific  theory  about 
the  matter. 

Where  Vermeer  seems  to  have  surpassed  any 
modern  was  in  the  serenity  and  finish  of  his  work. 
Modern  work  is  often  violent,  perturbed,  hasty. 
We  have,  indeed,  come  to  distrust  work  that  is 
different  from  this  in  spirit.  Yet  Vermeer’s  work 
is  different  from  this.  We  know  he  painted  for 
a space  of  twenty-five  years.  During  this  time 
we  know  of  his  producing  rather  less  than  two- 
score  works,  and  after  one  examines  these  it  does 
not  seem  likely  that  he  produced  many  more. 
They  are  too  patiently  wrought,  too  studied,  to 
allow  us  to  think  that  they  could  be  produced 
without  taking  thought,  and  no  vain  or  shallow 

222 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


thought  at  that.  They  are  carried  further  than 
is  anything  that  is  done  now.  That  is  what  one 
feels  in  looking  at  certain  brilliant  modern  things 
which  are  inspired,  let  us  say,  by  Vermeer’s  oracle. 
They  have  his  effectiveness  — often  much  of  his 
skill  in  arrangement;  often,  indeed,  certain  aspects 
of  colour  about  which  he  did  not  concern  himself; 
but  they  do  not  have  his  patient  finish  and  so 
do  not  have  his  serenity.  One  cannot  conceive 
of  any  modern  man  painting  a passage  like  the 
fringe  on  the  curtain  of  the  Dresden  Reader , 
the  stripes  on  the  man’s  costume  in  the  Studio , 
or  the  map  in  the  same  picture.  A modern 
doubtless  would  not  even  attempt  it;  he  would 
say  it  was  a mistake  to  do  it  in  that  way; 
that  it  should  be  handled  in  a looser,  more 
suggestive  way.  He  might  or  might  not  be 
right;  but  certainly  in  his  results  he  would  be 
different.  Vermeer  was  almost  Asiatic  in  his  will- 
ingness to  give  endless  labour  to  the  perfecting 
of  a small  detail  in  his  work,  if  he  saw  some 
way  of  making  it  better  than  it  was.  We  are 
not  willing  to  give  that  labour  — we  feel  we 
cannot;  our  life  is  too  perturbed  and  broken  in 
on  for  that.  Our  mottoes  reflect  our  state  of 
mind.  “Life  is  too  short  for  that,”  we  say. 

223 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

“ Hurry  up,  time  is  money,”  is  another  of  our 
pleasant  sayings. 

Time  apparently  was  of  no  importance  with 
Vermeer.  Like  Red  Jacket  he  might  have  said, 
“there’s  all  the  time  there  is.”  He  makes  one 
think  of  that  Philosopher  of  whom  Emerson 
speaks  who  sought  a walking-stick.  While  he 
sought  it  the  world  came  to  an  end.  While  he 
peeled  it  properly  the  solar  system  fell  into  the 
sun;  and  while  he  polished  it  as  it  should  be 
polished  the  universe  came  to  an  end;  but  he 
had  a perfect  walking-stick.  Vermeer’s  spirit  was 
of  like  nature.  It  mattered  nothing  to  him  how 
long  or  how  short  a time  it  took  him  to  make 
the  knob  on  the  end  of  a map  stick  — he  was 
concerned  in  getting  it  right  and  laboured  till  it 
was  right.  His  spirit  was  of  the  same  nature  as 
Browning’s  Grammarian.  He  based  the  enclitic 
in  877,  no  matter  how  long  it  took,  but  he  got  it 
right.  He  seems  to  have  had  a passion  for  right- 
ness that  we  do  not  attain  to;  and  a knowledge 
and  intelligence  added  to  his  diligence  that  al- 
lowed him  to  attain  to  it,  in  larger  measure,  at 
least,  than  do  other  men.  His  work,  for  instance, 
was  immensely  more  finished  in  essentials  than 
that  of  Van  Eyck  or  other  primitives  whose 

224 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 

works  we  think  of  as  miracles  of  laborious  finish. 
For  the  Primitives,  with  all  their  finish,  had  a 
certain  manner  of  attaining  a thing.  If,  for  in- 
stance, they  painted  the  gold  thread  shown  in 
some  drapery,  they  ticked  off  the  high  lights  all 
of  the  same  value  with  a skilful  hand,  thinking 
of  something  else  the  while.  One  can  see  this 
from  the  result.  When  Vermeer  painted  a sleeve 
shot  with  gold  thread,  as  in  his  picture  at  the 
Brunswick  Gallery,  the  value,  shape  and  edge  of 
each  touch  was  the  result  of  separate  intellectual 
efforts. 

Vermeer’s  finish,  then  — and  one  uses  the  term 
without  meaning  smoothness,  though  smoothness 
was  one  of  the  elements  of  his  finish  — was  far 
beyond  anything  that  we  achieve.  We  see  dimly 
how  he  did  it,  but  we  are  not  willing  to  make  the 
sacrifices  necessary  for  it.  We  are  like  that  rich 
young  man  in  Holy  Writ  who  asked  what  he 
might  do  to  be  saved,  but  when  told  to  sell  all 
and  follow  Christ  “went  away  very  sorrowful.” 
We,  however,  are  not  even  sorrowful;  we  simply 
pretend  that  we  do  not  think  finish  worth  while 
— that  the  grapes  are  sour. 

Although  Vermeer  had  an  intuition  for  colour, 
an  unconscious  sense  of  colour  values,  his  work  is 

225 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


not  always  the  equal  of  some  modern  things  in 
this  respect.  Sometimes  it  is.  In  the  Studio  and 
in  the  Love-Letter  of  the  Rijks  Museum  the  colour 
values  are  so  good  that  he  achieves,  humanly 
speaking,  just  the  aspect  of  nature.  If  these  pic- 
tures are  among  his  last,  as  one  guesses  from  in- 
terior evidence,  he  was  certainly  approaching  to 
the  goal  we  moderns  strive  for.  Some  of  his  pic- 
tures do  not  have  this  quality;  they  are  greyish 
or  greenish  or  bluish  in  tone.  One  likes  to  be- 
lieve that  this  rose  from  certain  mistakes  in  the 
use  of  colours  that  did  not  last  rather  than  from 
any  defect  in  vision.  It  is  impossible  to  think 
otherwise  when  one  considers  the  results  he 
achieved  in  the  two  works  we  have  mentioned. 

A man  does  not  go  on  seeing  colour  wrong  all 
his  life  and  suddenly  see  right.  The  two  pictures 
cited  are  alone  enough  to  prove  Vermeer’s  sense 
of  colour  values.  And  surely  that  sense  must 
have  been  in  a measure  conscious,  since  one  does 
not  achieve  so  difficult  a thing  without  taking 
thought. 

We  have  seen  that  Vermeer  did  not  concern 
himself  with  our  preoccupations  about  disinteg- 
rated colour.  He  could  not  well  do  this  since  the 
hypothesis  on  jvhich  colour  theories  are  based 

226 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


was  not  as  yet  proposed.  But,  as  we  have  also 
seen,  he  did  concern  himself  a good  deal  with 
underpaintings  of  blue,  with  glazes  and  with 
scumbles,  by  which  something  of  disintegrated 
colour  was  suggested.  Another  quality,  which 
makes  him  in  a very  different  way  from  theirs, 
suggest  the  neo-impressionists,  was  his  pointille 
touch.  He  used  it  with  solid  dull  tones  — with 
no  attempt  at  juxtaposing  complementary  colours 
in  small  touches  as  they  do.  Yet  in  a certain 
sense  he  seems  to  have  used  the  touch  for  some- 
thing the  same  reasonlthat  they  do  That  is,  he 
seems  to  have  had  a sense  with  them  of  the 
illusiveness  of  light,  of  its  intangibility.  He 
seems  with  them  to  have  sometimes  striven  to 
give  a sense  of  the  light  falling  on  the  object,  s to 
give  some  suggestion  of  the  “ halation  ” of  light,  of 
its  spreading  nature,  of  a certain  breadth  which 
could  not  be  suggested  by  modelling  along  the 
form  or  by  hatching  across  the  edge  of  the  lights. 

In  England  Orpen  has  painted  a number  of 
interiors  which  may  not  be  influenced  by  Ver- 
meer more  than  by  some  other  of  the  Dutchmen 
but  which  have  a good  deal  of  his  sense  of  pat- 
tern, of  designing  in  black  against  a white  ground. 

227 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Orpen  is  a very  brilliant  and  clever  painter,  but 
it  is  only  fair  to  point  out  that  his  brother-in- 
law  William  Rothenstein  had  done  the  same  sort 
of  thing  with  remarkable  success  for  some  years 
before.  Although  Rothenstein  now  paints  pic- 
tures of  quite  a different  genre , his  little  interiors 
seem  the  most  attractive  and  sympathetic  things 
he  has  done.  One  would  say  that  Orpen’s  pic- 
tures were  much  blacker  than  are  the  works  of 
the  Dutchman.  They  are  perhaps  lacking  in  a 
sense  of  colour  values.  But  they  are  strongly 
drawn  and  are  certainly  now  among  the  most 
interesting  things  of  the  English  school. 

Certain  of  our  American  artists  have  undoubt- 
edly been  influenced  by  Vermeer.  And  one  says 
this  with  confidence,  because  they  would  be  the 
first  to  say  that  they  have  studied  his  work  care- 
fully and  have  learned  much  from  it. 

Mr.  Thomas  Dewing  has  been  said  to  show 
some  influence  of  Vermeer  in  his  pictures  of 
charming  little  women  doing  nothing  with  pas- 
sionate earnestness,  who  make  gestures  of  fasci- 
nating futility  such  as  Helleu  has  suggested  with 
such  sympathetic  charm  and  which  Degas  has 
rendered  with  such  cruelty.  Mr.  Dewing’s  work, 
while  not  at  all  like  Vermeer’s  in  technical  pro- 

228 


Artist  unknown.  {Formerly  attributed  to  Jan  I ermeer  of  Deljt  by  Burger-1  bore) 

THE  SLEEPING  SERVANT 
Collection  of  P.  A.  B.  Widen er,  Philadelphia 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


cesses,  does,  indeed,  suggest  him  in  its  careful- 
ness, its  skilful  technique  and  its  refinement.  Yet 
these  little  women  of  Mr.  Dewing’s  are  not  of 
the  same  nature  as  are  the  huis-vrouwen  of  Ver- 
meer. They  are  sad  little  princesses  of  perilous 
lands  forlorn,  who  sit  in  an  atmosphere  heavy 
with  burning  incense  and  listen  vaguely  as  if  to 
low  lutes  of  love  concealed  behind  some  adventi- 
tious screen.  Their  tired  eyes  seem  wearied  from 
too  much  love  of  living;  as  the  Irish  say,  their 
“heart’s  broke  for  pleasure.”  The  burden  of 
modern  life  is  on  them. 

Vermeer’s  women,  on  the  other  hand,  are  se- 
rene in  the  antique  manner.  They  breathe  an  air 
of  crystalline  clearness  despite  the  dull  atmosphere 
of  Holland.  Where  Dewing’s  ladies  are  quite 
American  in  their  slender  forms,  in  the  bony 
attachment  of  their  wrists  and  collarbones,  Ver- 
meer’s are  wholly  Dutch  with  their  healthy  faces 
and  rounded  forms.  Certainly  the  Pearl  Necklace 
is  one  of  the  most  raffi-ne  pictures  ever  painted. 
But  its  refinement  is  that  of  perfect  health,  seen 
by  a perfectly  normal  vision  and  rendered  with 
flawless  technique.  It  is  the  refinement  that 
comes  from  health  rather  than  from  disease. 

Mr.  Edmund  C.  Tarbell’s  work  shows  such 


229 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


skill  in  design  and  technique  that  one  instinc- 
tively thinks  of  Dutch  art  and  of  Vermeer  in 
particular  when  seeing  it.  Mr.  Tarbell  comes 
by  this  naturally,  for  his  first  master,  Mr.  Otto 
Grundmann,  was  trained  in  the  school  of  Ant- 
werp where  Baron  Leys  had  dominated  the  teach- 
ing methods  for  a long  time.  Leys  had  studied 
De  Hooch’s  work  with  great  care,  although  later 
he  interested  himself  particularly  in  the  Van 
Eycks.  But  he  understood  Dutch  technique  thor- 
oughly and  taught  something  like  it  at  the 
school.  Grundmann  had  assimilated  his  technique 
and  taught  it  to  Tarbell  and  the  other  students 
of  his  time  at  the  Boston  Art  Museum  school. 
Mr.  Tarbell’s  work  and,  though  quite  different, 
Mr.  Paxton’s  as  well,  are  very  interesting  as 
showing  the  effect  of  the  Impressionistic  move- 
ment when  grafted,  so  to  say,  on  good  old 
Dutch  stock.  Both  these  men  received  a sound 
school  training  to  begin  with.  Each  in  his  way 
became  interested  in  the  Impressionistic  move- 
ment and  practised  its  principles  for  a time,  and 
each  has  then  taken  up  the  study  of  interiors 
something  in  the  manner  of  the  Dutch 
school. 

Mr.  Tarbell’s  work,  of  course,  recalls  the  Dutch 

230 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


painters  because  the  general  subject  is  the  same, 
but  the  pictures  are  really  very  different.  Mr. 
Tarbell  is  intensely  modern  — in  his  colour,  in 
his  manner  of  handling  paint,  in  his  composition. 
His  pictures  are  Modern  Instances,  so  to  say  — 
“ Variations  sur  une  theme  connue .”  Certainly 
they  are  among  the  most  successful  modern 
things,  and  he  has  been  able  to  discover  and 
render  new  beauties  in  the  painting  of  interiors. 

Mr.  W.  M.  Paxton  is  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
painters  of  interiors  of  these  days.  And  if  his 
work  suggests  Vermeer,  it  is  simply  that  he  is 
interested  in  the  same  sort  of  thing  and  does  it 
with  much  the  simplicity  and  directness  of  the 
old  master.  Paxton’s  work  has  one  thing  which 
certain  of  Vermeer’s  pictures  had  to  a remarkable 
degree  — a startling  sense  of  reality.  If  he  were 
asked  how  he  got  this  surprising  effectiveness,  he 
might  say,  as  Courbet  did  on  a similar  occasion, 
“J*  cherche  mes  tons”  That  sums  up  his  method. 
He  studies  his  tones  very  carefully,  and  in  paint- 
ing tries  to  draw  the  shapes  of  the  colour  shifts 
in  so  far  as  their  shapes  may  be  designed.  Pax- 
ton’s works  have  this  essential  difference  from 
the  Dutchmen,  that  he  almost  always  paints 
standing  up.  This  always  makes  for  effective- 

231 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


ness;  though,  as  we  have  seen,  one  is  not  apt  to 
finish  so  highly  in  this  manner.  But  Paxton  has 
an  uncanny  ability  to  finish,  and  certainly  one 
never  hears  his  pictures  blamed  for  lack  of 
finish. 

Indeed,  one  sometimes  hears  his  work  criticised 
for  its  smoothness.  Smoothness  and  finish  are  not 
necessarily  the  same  thing,  but  one  cannot  get  fin- 
ish on  a picture  that  is  not  smooth.  Paxton’s 
smoothness  comes,  like  Vermeer’s,  from  a convic- 
tion that  things  are  made  manifest  by  the  shape 
of  the  tones  and  colours,  not  by  brush  strokes  or 
crenellated  paint  surface. 

What  really  makes  him  most  like  Vermeer  in 
essentials  is  his  determination  to  achieve  what  tones 
may  be  in  his  picture  by  the  just  relation  of  colour 
values  rather  than  by  any  “muting”  of  tones  or 
binding  things  together  by  glazes. 

Mr.  Joseph  De  Camp  and  Mr.  Frank  Benson 
have  both  painted  charming  simple  figures  and  in- 
teriors not  unlike  in  spirit  to  those  of  the  Delft 
painter.  Yet,  perhaps,  none  of  these  is  so  direct 
a challenge  to  Vermeer  as  are  some  of  the  other 
modern  works  that  have  been  mentioned. 

But  these  things  we  have  noted  are  but  sur- 
face resemblances.  Vermeer  remains,  after  all  is 

232 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  GIRL 


Aren  berg  Gallery',  Brussels 


■■■ 


VERMEER  AND  MODERN  PAINTING 


said  and  done,  wholly  himself.  It  is  not  only  the 
mystery  of  his  life  that  one  cannot  penetrate;  one 
cannot  wholly  penetrate  the  mystery  of  his  art. 
He  is  still  the  Sphinx  that  Burger  called  him. 

One  can  fancy  him  among  his  neighbors  simple 
enough,  most  likely;  or  with  his  children  — doubt- 
less a good  father  of  a lusty  family.  Yet  with  it 
all  persisted  this  curious  genius,  so  different  from 
the  genius  of  other  men;  a genius  that  did  not  re- 
veal itself  by  his  painting  impossibilities,  or  going 
bankrupt,  or  ruffling  it  with  the  night  watch,  — but 
showed  itself  in  that  anguished  acuteness  of  obser- 
vation that  made  him  see  a little  truer  than  other 
men.  And  with  that  was  something  more;  a sense 
of  the  right  relation  of  things,  in  line,  in  colour, 
and  in  form;  and  a curious  instinct  for  colour,  dif- 
ferent from  the  rest,  — colder  and  yet  more  aes- 
thetic. 

We  can  fancy  him  dying  with  his  secret  undis- 
covered — except  that  men  in  a puzzled  way  liked 
his  pictures  for  the  perfection  of  their  technique. 

And,  as  the  French  say,  when  one  is  dead  it  is 
for  a long  time.  Certainly  it  was  for  him,  even  for 
his  fame.  Yet  if,  somewhere,  in  no  man’s  land,  a 
pale  ghost  — Vermeer  yclept  — should  chance  to 
linger;  — if  he  thinks  at  all  of  our  little  doings  here, 

233 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

doubtless  it  comes  not  amiss  to  him  that  the  per- 
fection of  his  work,  rather  than  any  praise  of  men, 
did  in  the  end  bring  these  works  to  their  own.  To 
an  artist  there  is  a peculiar  satisfaction  in  forcing 
recognition  by  the  sheer  merit  of  his  handiwork. 
Certainly  with  Vermeer  this  has  come  about:  for 
by  his  works  we  know  him. 


234 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


CHAPTER  IX 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

ABOUT  twenty-one  years  after  the  death  of 
Vermeer  there  occurred  in  Amsterdam,  May 
1 6,  1696,  a sale  of  some  hundred  pictures  by 
various  artists.  Among  these  were  twenty-one 
pictures  by  Vermeer.  These  paintings  are  of 
great  importance  to  us  in  tracing  the  pictures 
of  Vermeer,  because,  if  we  find  a picture  very 
much  in  the  manner  of  the  master  of  Delft,  and 
if  its  subject  corresponds  with  one  of  those  in 
the  Catalogue  of  the  Sale  of  1696,  we  have 
an  added  reason  for  supposing  the  picture  to 
be  by  Vermeer. 

There  follows  the  list  of  pictures  from  the  Cata- 
logue of  the  1696  Sale  with  the  comment  printed 
at  that  time  and  with  the  prices.  Prices  in  our 
money,  together  with  additional  comment,  are 
printed  in  parentheses. 


237 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


LIST  OF  VERMEERS  IN  1 696  AMSTERDAM  SALE 

1.  A Woman  Weighing  Gold — in  a case,  painted 
in  an  extraordinarily  skilful  and  strong  manner 
. . . florins  155  ($62;  No.  10  in  Hofstede  de 
Groot’s  Catalogue  raisonne.  Now  in  the  Widener 
Collection). 

2.  A Maid-Servant  Pouring  out  Milk  — exceed- 
ingly good  . . . florins  175  ($70.  H.  d.  G.  17. 
Now  in  the  Rijks  Museum). 

3.  The  Portrait  of  Vermeer  — in  a room  with 
rich  accessories  painted  in  an  unusually  fine  style 
. . . 45  florins  ($18.  H.  d.  G.  8.  Supposed  by 
Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot  to  be  the  picture  now  in 
the  Czernin  Collection.  Certain  reasons  for  doubt- 
ing this  will  be  discussed  later). 

4.  A Lady  Playing  the  Guitar  — very  well 
painted  ...  70  florins  ($28;  H.  d.  G.  26.  Now  in 
John  G.  Johnson’s  Collection  in  Philadelphia). 

5.  An  Interior  — a gentleman  washing  his  hands, 
with  a vista  and  figures;  painted  in  a skilful  and 
unusual  style  ...  95  florins  ($38;  H.  d.  G.  21. 
Not  discovered). 

6.  An  Interior  — with  a lady  at  the  vir- 
ginals and  a gentleman  listening.  80  florins  ($32; 

238 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


H.  d.  ‘G.  28.  Possibly  the  one  now  at  Windsor 
Castle). 

7.  A Lady  to  whom  a Maid-Servant  is  bringing 
a Letter  ...  70  florins  ($28;  H.  d.  G.  32.  This 
may  be  the  one  in  the  Rijks  Museum  or  possibly 
the  one  in  the  Simon  Collection,  Berlin). 

8.  A Drunken  Maid-Servant  asleep  behind  a 
Table  ...  16  florins  ($6.20;  H.  d.  G.  3 Van- 
zype  gives  62  florins  ($24.60).  Probably  the  pic- 
ture in  the  late  B.  Altman’s  Collection  in  New 
York). 

9.  An  Interior  with  Revellers  — well  painted  in 
a strong  manner  ...  73  florins  ($29.20;  undis- 
covered; although  it  has  been  thought  to  be  the 
Courtesan  or  the  Brunswick  Coquette). 

10.  An  Interior  — with  a gentleman  making 
music,  and  a lady  ...  81  florins  ($32.40;  H.  d. 

G.  30;  undiscovered). 

11.  A Soldier  with  a Laughing  Girl  — very  fine 
. . . 44^  florins  ($17.60;  H.  d.  G.  39.  Now  in 
the  Collection  of  H.  C.  Frick,  New  York). 

12.  A Girl  Making  Lace  ...  28  florins  ($11.20; 

H.  d.  G.  11.  Now  in  the  Louvre). 

31.  A View  of  Delft  from  the  South  . . . 200  flor- 
ins ($80;  H.  d.  G.  48.  Now  in  the  Mauritshuis). 

239 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

32.  A View  of  a House  in  Delft  . . . 72)^  florins 
($29;  H.  d.  G.  47.  Now  in  the  Six  Collection, 
Amsterdam). 

33.  A View  of  Some  Houses  ...  48  florins 
($19.20;  H.  d.  G.  49;  undiscovered). 

35.  A Lady  Writing  — very  well  painted  . . . 
63  florins  ($25.20;  H.  d.  G.  35.  Possibly  in  Mr. 
A.  Beit’s  Collection,  or  it  may  be  H.  d.  G.  36 
which  is  in  the  Collection  of  the  late  J.  P. 
Morgan). 

36.  A Lady  Adorning  Herself  ...  30  florins 
($12;  H.  d.  G.  20.  Now  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich 
Museum,  Berlin). 

37.  A Lady  Playing  the  Spinet  ...  42  florins 
($16.80;  H.  d.  G.  23,  24,  or  25.  Now  in  the  Na- 
tional Gallery  if  23  or  25;  if  24  in  the  Beit 
Collection). 

38.  A Portrait  in  an  Antique  Costume  — 
painted  in  an  unusual  and  skilful  manner  . . . 
— 36  florins  ($14.40;  H.  d.  G.  44.  Now  in  the 
Mauritshuis,  The  Hague). 

39.  Another  similar  portrait  ...  17  florins 
($6.80;  H.  d.  G.  42.  Now  in  the  Arenberg  Col- 
lection, Brussels). 

40.  A pendant  to  the  last  ...  17  florins  ($6.80; 
not  found). 


240 


■•.'.I- 


mEfw 


'ail  V ermeer  of  Delft 


LADY  WRITING 


Collection  of  J.  Pierpont 
Metropolitan  Museum 


Morgan  ; lent  to  the 
of  Art,  New  York 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


It  is  supposed  that  fifteen  of  these  pictures 
have  been  recovered.  In  some  cases,  however,  the 
wish  seems  father  of  the  thought,  and  a picture 
will  be  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  1696  Sale  merely 
because  the  general  subject  seems  the  same. 

There  is  certainly  room  for  doubting  if  the 
Portrait  of  Vermeer  is  the  same  as  the  Studio  of 
the  Czernin  Gallery.  This  matter  will  be  discussed 
under  the  head  of  the  picture  itself. 

Very  possibly  the  Lady  Playing  the  Guitar  of 
Mr.  Johnson’s  Collection  is  the  No.  4 of  the  1696 
Sale,  though  it  can  hardly  be  called,  at  least  in 
relation  to  Vermeer’s  other  pictures,  “very  well 
painted.” 

No.  1 of  the  1696  Catalogue  has  very  recently 
been  discovered  or  rediscovered  in  a most  inter- 
esting way  by  Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot.  The  pic- 
ture was  known  to  exist  because  it  kept  turning 
up  in  sales,  first  in  Holland  in  1701  and  in  1 777, 
then  at  Munich  in  1826,  later  in  France,  where 
it  was  In  the  Laperiere  Collection,  and  later  in 
that  of  Casimir-Perier.  It  was  last  heard  of  in 
the  Casimir-Perier  Sale  of  1848  at  London. 

It  seems  the  picture  was  repurchased  by  the 
son  of  the  late  owner  and  by  him,  apparently,  given 
to  his  sister,  the  Countess  de  Segur,  sister  of  the 

241 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

late  President  Casimir-Perier.  At  her  house, 
where  it  had  been  reposing  for  over  fifty  years, 
apparently  quite  unknown,  it  was  refound  and 
authenticated  by  Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot. 

Certain  pictures  of  the  1696  Catalogue  have 
never  been  found,  and  they  are  ones  which  we 
should  very  much  like  to  have.  For  instance, 
No.  5,  Gentleman  Washing  his  Hands , sounds  as 
if  it  were  a good  subject.  Terburg  did  a Lady 
Washing  her  Hands,  which  is  one  of  his  most 
delightful  works;  No.  9,  Interior  with  Revellers 
or,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  A Joyous  Company , 
has  sometimes  been  thought  to  be  the  Courtesan 
of  the  Dresden  Gallery.  But  it  seems  probable 
that  this  is  another  picture.  No.  10,  A Gentleman 
Making  Music , and  a Lady,  might  be  any  one 
of  two  or  three  of  Vermeer’s  pictures.  But  the 
title  is  too  vague  to  permit  of  any  exact 
reasoning. 

Another  lost  picture  is  No.  40,  the  companion 
piece  to  the  picture  belonging  to  the  Vicomte 
d’Arenberg’s  Head  of  a Woman. 

Still  another  lost  picture  is  View  of  a Street, 
unless  this  be  the  Street  in  Delft  of  the  Six  Col- 
lection. There  are  two  street  scenes,  in  the 
1696  Catalogue  and  only  one  of  them  is  known 

242 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


to  exist.  Whether  this  is  No.  32  or  33  we  have 
no  exact  means  of  knowing. 

Beside  the  Catalogue  of  1696  pictures,  we  also 
know  of  sixteen  other  pictures  which  are  most 
probably  by  Vermeer.  They  are  as  follows: 

The  New  Testament , now  at  the  Mauritshuis  of 
the  Hague.  This  picture  was  noted  in  sales  in 
1699,  in  1718,  and  in  1735,  and  was  refound  by 
Dr.  Bredius. 

The  Toilette  of  Diana  was  sold  in  the  Gold- 
schmidt Sale,  Paris,  1876,  as  a Nicholas  Maes,  for 
4725  francs  ($945).  Later,  it  was  catalogued  as  a 
Vermeer  of  Utrecht,  one  hardly  knows  why,  and 
is  now  quite  generally  thought  to  be  by  Vermeer 
of  Delft. 

The  Letter , or  Reader , of  the  Rijks  Museum, 
which  came  from  the  Van  der  Hoop  Collection. 
It  had  sold  for  200  francs  ($40)  in  Paris,  1809; 
for  1060  francs  ($212)  at  the  Lapeyriere  Sale  in 
1825;  882  florins  ($352)  in  1839. 

The  Mistress  and  Servant , which  belonged  to 
Lebrun,  was  later  in  the  Dufour  Collection,  Mar- 
seilles. It  was  sold  for  405  francs  ($81)  in  1837; 
for  600  francs  ($120)  in  1890,  and  now  belongs  to 
James  Simon  of  Berlin. 

The  Taste  of  Wine  of  the  Museum  of  Berlin. 

243 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

The  Glass  of  IF  ins,  or  Coquette,  of  the  Bruns- 
wick Gallery. 

The  Christ  at  the  House  of  Mary  and  Martha  of 
the  Coats  Collection,  Skalmorlie  Castle,  Scotland. 

The  Girl  at  the  Spinet  of  the  Beit  Collec- 
tion. The  picture  with  a similar  subject  form- 
erly in  the  Salting  Collection  has  been  acquired 
by  the  National  Gallery. 

The  Woman  with  a Pitcher , or  Woman  at  a 
Casement , of  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  New 
York,  was  in  the  Powerscourt  Collection,  later  in 
that  of  the  late  Henry  G.  Marquand  of  New 
York. 

The  Concert,  or  A Musical  Trio , of  the  Gardner 
Museum  of  Boston. 

The  Girl  Reading  at  a Window,  or  The  Letter,  of 
the  Dresden  Gallery,  sold  in  Paris  in  1742,  was  first 
attributed  to  Rembrandt,  later  to  Pieter  de  Hooch. 

The  Courtesan,  or  The  Procuress , is  possibly 
the  Interior  with  Revellers,  No.  9 in  the  1696 
Catalogue.  The  small  price  paid,  73  florins 
($29.20),  leads  one  to  doubt  if  so  large  a picture 
sold  for  such  a sum. 

The  Portrait  of  a Woman  of  Buda-Pesth. 

The  Girl  with  a Flute,  property  of  Knoedler  and 
Company. 


244 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


The  Portrait  of  a Young  Man,  Museum  of  Brus- 
sels, thought  by  some  to  be  by  Vermeer. 

The  Studio  discovered  by  Waagen  and  Burger 
in  the  Czernin  Collection  of  Vienna  where  it  had 
been  attributed  to  Pieter  de  Hooch. 

There  seems  to  be  some  confusion  about  the 
two  Pendants  of  the  1696  Catalogue.  Dr.  Hofstede 
de  Groot  evidently  considers  them  as  the  Arenberg 
head  and  another  not  yet  found.  Mr.  Vanzype 
apparently  thinks  that  they  are  two  of  the  three 
Astronomer  subjects,  one  of  which  is  also  called 
the  Geographer. 

There  is  also  a Lesson  in  the  National  Gallery, 
but  this  is  evidently  not  by  Vermeer. 

There  follows  a complete  list,  so  far  as  is  pos- 
sible, of  the  pictures  known  to  be  by  Vermeer, 
with  detailed  description  and  such  analysis  and 
comment  as  seem  proper  to  the  matter  in  hand. 


245 


A CATALOGUE  RAISONNE  OF  THE  KNOWN  WORKS  OF 
VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

United  States 
CONCERT 

In  the  Collection  of  Mrs.  John  L.  Gardner, 
Boston 

A group  about  a harpsichord.  A young  girl, 
seated,  in  profile,  facing  to  the  right,  is  playing. 
A gentleman  sits  near  the  spinet,  his  back  to 
the  spectator.  Standing  nearby,  in  three  quar- 
ters, toward  the  right  of  the  canvas,  and 
facing  toward  the  left,  is  the  figure  of  a lady. 
She  is  dressed  in  a jacket  trimmed  with  white 
swansdown,  and  holds  a bit  of  paper  in  her  left 
hand  at  which  she  is  looking,  while  her  right  hand 
beats  time.  The  man  is  dressed  in  a plain  coloured 
coat  over  which  a bandolier  is  stretched:  he  sits 
in  a chair  upholstered  in  green  and  blue  tapestry. 
The  young  girl  wears  a silk  gown  and  has 
ribbons  in  her  hair.  Just  above  her  head,  on  the 

246 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


wall,  is  a large  landscape,  while  the  painted  in- 
side of  the  spinet  cover  sets  off  the  head  of  the 
man,  and  a larger  picture  relieves  the  head  of  the 
woman;  the  wall  is  of  a violet  grey.  A table  in 
the  foreground  to  the  left  of  the  picture  is  cov- 
ered by  a crumpled  rug  and  by  a guitar.  A 
cello  lies  nearby  on  the  floor,  which  is  in  black 
and  white  tessellated  pavement. 

Canvas,  28  inches  by  25  inches. 

It  was  in  the  Sale  of  the  Baroness  van  Leyden, 
Paris,  1804,  and  later  in  the  Biirger-Thore  Collec- 
tion; sold  in  Paris,  December,  1892,  for  29,000 
francs  ($5800). 

One  feels  at  once  that  this  is  a Vermeer,  painted 
in  his  best  period.  It  is  particularly  fine  in  design. 
The  background  fills  a distinct  part  in  carrying 
out  the  pattern  — a quality  distinctive  in  Ver- 
meer’s best  work  and  one  which  differentiates  him 
from  other  Dutch  painters.  One  notes  that  the 
figures  are  far  back  in  the  canvas  — almost  against 
the  wall.  This  arrangement  occurs  only  in  the 
Music  Lesson  of  Vermeer’s  other  work.  This, 
together  with  certain  technical  qualities,  leads  one 
to  think  the  picture  may  have  been  painted  at 
about  the  same  time  as  the  Windsor  example. 

247 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

The  introduction  of  the  dark  table  with  massed 
draperies  as  a foil  to  the  rest  of  the  composition 
is  peculiarly  characteristic  of  Vermeer  and,  so  far 
as  one  remembers,  of  no  other  painter  of  his  time. 

Perhaps  the  most  charming  figure  is  that  of  the 
young  girl  playing,  wholly  characteristic  of 
Vermeer  in  design  and  character,  and  quite  dif- 
ferent from  the  work  of  any  other  painter.  There 
is  great  distinction  in  the  quality  of  the  pattern. 

Per  contra , the  other  figures  are  singularly  stu- 
pid. One  cannot  but  regret  that  Vermeer  ever 
met  the  fat,  bestial,  greasy-looking  man  who 
appears  in  several  of  his  pictures  and  whose  back 
adorns  this  one.  The  standing  lady  is  more 
successful  — she  fills  well  enough  her  place  in  her 
little  world,  though  without  distinction. 


A YOUNG  WOMAN  OPENING  A CASEMENT 

Metropolitan  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  New  York 

A young  woman  in  a white  kerchief,  with  a large 
collar  on  a yellow  jacket  with  blue  trimmings,  and 
a blue  skirt,  stands  near  a casement,  which  she 
opens  with  her  right  hand.  Her  left  hand  holds  a 
brass  pitcher  on  a salver.  The  salver  rests  on  a 
table  covered  with  a parti-coloured  Oriental  rug. 

248 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


On  the  wall  to  her  left  is  a map  — the  wall  is  of 
that  grey  which  Vermeer  often  painted.  A lion- 
headed chair  is  behind  the  table,  and  a yellow 
jewel  box  is  at  the  right  of  the  self-same  table. 

Canvas,  17^  inches  by  15J2  inches. 

This  picture  formerly  belonged  to  Lord  Powers- 
court,  was  subsequently  sold  to  Mr.  Marquand 
of  New  York,  and  was  by  him  in  1888  given 
to  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  where  it  now  is. 
It  is  sometimes  called  Young  Woman  with  a 
Pitcher , or  Water  Jug. 

Technically,  this  is  among  the  most  skilful  of 
Vermeer’s  performances;  that  is,  there  are  very 
few  falterings  or  weak  passages  such  as  appear  in 
some  of  his  works.  He  seems  to  have  known  just 
what  he  wanted  to  get  and  to  have  been  able  to 
render  just  what  he  desired. 

In  colour  it  is  a very  characteristic  Vermeer  in 
that  the  colour  scheme  resolves  itself  into  blues 
and  yellows  with  a certain  amount  of  greys  — an 
arrangement  which  one  often  finds  with  Vermeer 
and  very  seldom  with  anyone  else.  The  tonality 
is  of  a marked  bluish  quality.  Whether  this 
comes  from  a bluish  underpainting,  as  has  been 
suggested,  is  difficult  to  decide  absolutely,  although 

249 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

it  seems  very  possible.  It  is  questionable  if  it  is 
so  fine  in  colour  as  certain  others,  like  The  Studio, 
although  this  bluish  tone  is  very  popular  with 
certain  amateurs  of  Vermeer.  Altogether  the  pic- 
ture takes  its  place  as  one  of  his  better  works. 

LADY  WRITING 

Collection  of  the  late  J.  Pierpont  Morgan,  New  York 
(now  loaned  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of 
Art,  New  York) 

A lady  sits  writing  at  a table.  She  leans  for- 
ward and  turns  her  head  slightly  toward  the  specta- 

9 

tor.  She  wears  a yellow  morning  jacket  trimmed 
with  ermine;  the  chair  in  which  she  sits  is  orna- 
mented with  gilt  lions’  heads.  On  the  table  are  an 
inkstand,  some  pearls,  and  a casket.  Behind  her 
is  a map  rather  obscured  in  the  half  light.  The 
picture  is  lighted  from  a window  at  the  extreme  left. 
Canvas,  i8J^  inches  by  14)^  inches. 

This  picture  may  have  been  in  the  Amsterdam 
Sale  of  1696.  It  also  probably  appeared  in  the 
Luchtmans  Sale,  Rotterdam,  1816;  the  Kamernan 
Sale,  Rotterdam,  1825;  the  Reydon  Sale,  Am- 
sterdam, 1827,  and  De  Robiano  Sale,  Brussels. 

250 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


While  there  are  many  clever  bits  about  this 
picture  — notably  the  lions’  heads  which  adorn 
the  chair  — it  should  be  granted  that  the  paint- 
ing is  among  the  least  interesting  of  those  by 
Vermeer.  There  is  a terrible  suggestion  of  Netscher 
in  the  technique,  which  leads  one,  indeed,  to 
believe  that  the  picture  was  painted  toward  the 
end  of  Vermeer’s  life,  when  whatever  French  in- 
fluence existed  was  at  its  strongest.  The  tone  of 
this  particular  picture  is  rather  dismal  — it  is 
blacker  in  quality  than  most  of  our  Vermeer’s 
work.  In  looking  carefully  at  the  head  one  gets 
a sense  that  the  background  shows  through.  Ap- 
parently the  whole  picture  was  painted  in  the 
thinner,  greyer  manner  which  was  possibly  the 
result  of  French  influence.  Certainly  Vermeer’s 
later  work  shows  some  affinities  to  the  later 
work  of  Terburg  and  of  Maes  — even  to  that  of 
Netscher  and  of  Mieris.  Of  course  it  was  vastly 
superior  to  these  latter,  but  the  connection  re- 
mains. There  is  even  a something  — not  a like- 
ness — but  a manner  of  working  similar  to  that 
of  Lairesse  and  some  of  the  men  of  the  third  gen- 
eration of  Dutch  art  in  the  seventeenth  century. 

Certainly  Lairesse  and  his  contemporaries  frankly 
admitted  the  influence  of  the  contemporary 

251 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

French  school,  and  both  they  and  the  French- 
men, such  as  Lagilliere,  Rigaud,  and  Mignard, 
had  certain  points  in  common  — a liking  for 
clean,  thoroughly  understood  technique,  for  clear 
bright  colours,  and  for  smooth  surface.  These 
qualities  Vermeer  shared  with  them,  although 
his  choice  of  subject  remained  for  the  most  part 
pure  genre. 

It  is  evident  that  Vermeer  had  a certain  liking 
for  Latin  art.  If  it  be  true  that  Leonard  Bramer 
was  his  master,  this  may  have  been  gained  from 
him.  We  find  Vermeer  owning  a Crucifixion  appar- 
ently by  Jordaens  or  at  least  a copy;  the  Gipsy 
Woman  (now  in  Antwerp)  by  Dirk  van  Ba- 
buren,  an  academic  artist  who  worked  mostly  in 
Italy.  The  Cupid  which  appears  in  three  of  his 
pictures  seems  to  be  a painting  of  similar  type, 
perhaps  even  a French  or  an  Italian. 


A GENTLEMAN  AND  A YOUNG  LADY  (or  the  Singing 

Lesson) 

Collection  of  H.  C.  Frick,  New  York 

A gentleman,  apparently  the  same  model  as  in 
the  Girl  with  the  Wine  Glass , leans  over  a young 
lady  to  take  or  to  give  a paper  which  may  or  may 

252 


GENTLEMAN  AND  A YOUNG  LADY,  SOMETIMES 
CALLED  THE  MUSIC  LESSON 
Collection  of  Henry  C.  Frick,  New  York 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

not  have  some  connection  with  the  book  of  music 
on  the  table.  The  young  lady  turns  her  head 
away  from  him  and  towards  the  spectator.  She 
is  dressed  in  a red  jacket  and  a blue  skirt.  She 
wears  a white  kerchief.  Beside  the  music  on  the 
covered  table,  there  are  a mandolin  and  the  jug  of 
Chinese  ware  which  appears  so  often  in  Vermeer’s 
pictures,  together  with  a glass  of  red  wine.  In 
front  of  the  table,  to  the  left,  making  an  impor- 
tant detail  in  the  composition,  is  a lion-headed 
chair  in  which  lies  a blue  cushion.  There  is 
another  chair  of  the  same  design,  and  the  lady 
herself  sits  in  still  another  of  the  same  sort.  The 
light  comes  from  a leaded  window  to  the  left;  on 
the  wall,  nearby,  is  a bird  cage  said  to  be  painted 
by  another  hand.  Behind  the  girl’s  figure  is  some- 
thing which  looks  as  if  it  might  be  a picture  on 
the  wall. 

Dimly  adumbrated  thereon  may  be  seen  the 
same  Cupid  which  appears  in  the  Lady  at  the 
Virginals  of  the  National  Gallery  and  in  the  Girl 
Asleep  of  the  Altman  Collection.  A curious  detail 
is  that  in  the  Cupid  of  the  Girl  Asleep  a mask 
appears  in  the  right-hand  corner  of  the  picture. 
In  the  National  Gallery  example  it  does  not 
appear.  Whether  Vermeer  left  this  out  in  paint- 

253 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


ing  the  picture  on  the  wall,  or  whether  in  the 
Altman  Collection  he  “chic-ed”  or  “faked”  it 
in  does  not  appear. 

This  may  be  the  picture  of  the  1696  Sale  cata- 
logued A Gentleman  and  a Lady  Making  Music. 

Panel,  14^  inches  by  i6}/2  inches  (H.  de 
Groot). 

Canvas,  15J4  inches  by  17^  inches  (W.  R. 
Valentiner). 

Sold  at  the  Smeth  Van  Alphen  Sale,  Amster- 
dam, 1810,  for  610  florins  ($244).  It  was  in  the 
Collection  of  Lewis  Fry,  Clifton,  Bristol. 

One  thinks  of  the  words  of  the  good  old  hymn 
in  looking  at  this  picture,  for 

“ Every  prospect  pleases, 

And  only  man  is  vile.” 

One  sees  and  approves  the  wrell-known  lions’  heads, 
as  exquisitely  done  as  ever;  the  little  white 
jug  which  we  know  so  well  is  here,  and  the 
quaintly  leaded  casement;  all  these  are  treated 
in  a most  masterly  way.  Then,  when  one  looks 
at  the  man  or  the  girl,  one  does  not  feel  the  same 
aesthetic  reaction.  It  must  be  confessed  that  our 
hero  faltered  here  — they  are  not  very  well  done. 
Indeed,  when  one  looks  at  the  ridiculous  folds  of 

254 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

the  young  woman’s  dress  one  feels  that  they  may 
have  been  repainted  by  some  clumsier  hand  than 
Vermeer’s.  The  man’s  draperies  are  better  made 
because  they  are  more  logically  constructed,  but 
one  does  not  feel  the  sense  of  light  sliding  across 
them  in  the  way  that  Vermeer  could  do  so 
well  when  he  could  get  drapery  to  keep  still  for 
him.  The  girl’s  face,  to  be  sure,  is  rather  pretty, 
but  by  no  means  well  constructed  — that  would 
not  matter  so  much,  since  it  was  not  Vermeer’s 
specialty  — but,  unfortunately,  even  the  light  and 
shade,  which  were  what  he  usually  did  particularly 
well,  are  here  not  very  good.  Compare  the 
head  and  kerchief  with  the  same  things  in 
The  Woman  at  a Casement  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum,  and  note  the  difference.  The  weakly 
drawn  hand  and  wrist  and  the  slimpsy  waist  make 
one  understand,  after  all,  how  his  pictures  were 
sometimes  mistaken  for  those  of  Jan  Steen,  al- 
though the  latter  in  his  best  moments  could  never 
have  approached  the  painting  of  the  accessories. 

It  is  rather  ungracious  to  speak  of  these  de- 
fects, but  they  serve  to  show  us  markedly  what 
Vermeer’s  strong  points  were  and  wherein  he  was 
not  so  able.  Doubtless,  in  this  case,  he  could  not 
keep  the  models  long  enough  or  found  difficulty  in 

255 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


making  them  keep  the  pose,  for  he  has  painted 
some  of  the  finest  heads  ever  made,  for  instance, 
the  young  girl’s  head  at  the  Hague  Museum.  If 
he  had  painted  them  simply  and  frankly  as  if 
they  were  bits  of  still  life,  they  might  have  been 
better.  That  was  indeed  his  method  in  his  great- 
est successes.  But,  at  times,  he  seemed  to  lose  his 
courage  in  painting  the  living  model  and  to  ap- 
proach it  in  a different  mood  from  that  objective 
spirit  which  was  what  made  him  the  great 
painter  he  was. 

THE  SOLDIER  AND  THE  LAUGHING  GIRL 

Collection  of  H.  C.  Frick,  New  York 

A soldier  sits  in  “ lost  profile  ” with  his  back 
slightly  turned  to  the  spectator.  His  right  arm  is 
akimbo,  the  hand  resting  on  his  thigh.  He  looks 
at  a laughing  girl  who  sits  at  the  other  side  of  a 
small  table  in  a lion-headed  chair.  The  girl’s 
head  is  in  three  quarters;  as  she  looks  at  the  sol- 
dier her  right  hand  holds  a wine  glass,  her  left 
rests  upon  the  table. 

The  soldier  sits  in  a lion-headed  chair;  his  hat 
is  black  with  a red  ribbon  and  his  baldric  is  of  red 
with  a bandolier.  The  girl’s  bodice  is  of  black 

256 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

and  yellow,  and  she  wears  a white  coif  about  her 
head. 

The  casement  of  a leaded  window,  to  the  left, 
is  partly  open  to  admit  the  light;  above  is  a 
curtain.  On  the  wall  behind  the  girl’s  head  and 
high  up  in  the  picture  is  a map  of  Holland  and  of 
West  Friesland. 

Not  signed.  This  is  No.  n,  Amsterdam  Sale, 
1696,  44)^  florins  ($17.60). 

It  belonged  at  one  time  to  the  Double  Collec- 
tion; not  in  the  Deimdoff  Collection,  San  Donato, 
as  Havard  says.  It  was  long  attributed  to  De 
Hooch,  though  it  has  nothing  of  his  manner.  For- 
merly in  the  Collection  of  Mrs.  Joseph,  London. 

This  picture  has  about  it  many  of  the  ear- 
marks of  Vermeer.  The  lion-headed  chairs  are 
there  and  the  map  he  was  so  fond  of  painting. 
The  girl  is  dressed  in  a bodice  which  he  often 
rendered,  and  she  wears  on  her  head  just  the  sort 
of  coif  which  he  painted  into  a number  of  his 
pictures. 

The  composition  is  daring  and  original.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  the  large  size  of  the  soldier’s 
head  in  relation  to  that  of  the  girl,  showing 

257 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

how  close  to  his  subject  Vermeer  was  accustomed 
to  sit. 

And  yet  one  does  not  feel  that  this  is  one  of 
Vermeer’s  best  pictures.  The  blacks  seem  exag- 
gerated in  their  blackness,  and  many  of  the  shad- 
ows are  too  dark.  Indeed,  one  feels  a depressing 
sense  of  blackness  all  through  the  picture,  and  the 
colour  values  are  not  so  good  as  in  many  of  our 
artist’s  works. 

It  is  interesting,  of  course,  to  study  the  map, 
which  is  done  in  that  astonishing  detail  which 
Vermeer  knew  so  well  how  to  obtain.  Yet  even 
the  map  is  not  so  good  as,  let  us  say,  that  in 
the  Studio , where  the  light  slides  over  its  surface 
in  so  wonderful  a way.  Here  the  effect  of  light 
is  hardly  as  good.  One  feels  the  local  tone  of  the 
blacks  coming  out  too  strongly. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  perspective 
of  the  window  gives  still  another  proof  of  the  fact 
that  Vermeer  was  accustomed  to  work  at  his  can- 
vas sitting  down. 

LADY  WITH  LUTE 

Collection  of  Mrs.  Henry  E.  Huntington,  New  York 

A young  woman  holding  a lute  sits  facing  the 
spectator,  her  head  turned  somewhat  to  the  left. 

258 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


She  is  dressed  in  a yellow  jacket  trimmed  with 
ermine.  On  the  table  before  her  is  a blue  striped 
cover  on  which  are  two  music  books.  In  front  of 
the  table  is  a chair  on  which  some  blackish-blue 
drapery  is  thrown.  At  the  back,  towards  the  left, 
against  the  wall  is  another  chair,  and  above  this 
hangs  a map.  The  picture  is  lit  by  a window  at 
the  left,  over  which  hangs  a blue  curtain. 

Signed  on  the  wall  beneath  the  table:  “ Meer.” 

Canvas,  20^3  inches  by  18%  inches. 

From  an  English  collection. 

The  design  of  this  picture,  especially  the  spac- 
ing, is  excellent,  very  characteristic  of  Vermeer 
and  yet  differing  from  his  other  compositions.  The 
figure  is  placed  more  toward  the  window  than  is 
usual  and  there  is  more  space  on  the  further  side. 
An  interesting  peculiarity  in  the  design,  very 
characteristic  of  Vermeer  — a peculiarity  which 
also  occurs  in  the  Woman  at  a Casement  — is 
that  he  brings  the  shape  of  the  end  of  the  map- 
stick  close  against  the  woman’s  head,  almost 
touching  it. 

In  modern  design  it  is  almost  an  axiom  that 
two  marked  forms  in  different  planes  of  the  com- 
position should  either  overlap  or  be  quite  widely 

259 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

separated.  Bringing  them  close  together  as  Ver- 
meer has  done  is  often  spoken  of  to  students 
as  a fault.  Yet  Vermeer  does  it  successfully. 
It  may  be  one  of  those  things  like  the  prejudice 
against  consecutive  fifths  among  musicians  which 
has  no  particular  foundation.  One  would  guess 
from  the  technique — from  the  likeness  in  man- 
ner of  the  design  and  from  the  particular  way 
in  which  the  window  is  arranged  — that  this 
picture  was  painted  about  the  same  time  as  the 
Berlin  Pearl  Necklace  and  the  Woman  at  a 
Casement  and  the  National  Gallery  Lady  at  the 
Virginals. 

A GIRL  ASLEEP 

Collection  of  the  late  Benjamin  Altman 

A young  woman,  sitting  quite  to  the  left  of  the 
canvas  and  facing  the  spectator,  leans  her  head  on 
her  right  hand,  her  elbow  resting  on  the  table 
before  her:  her  left  hand  touches  the  table.  She 
wears  a curious,  pointed  black  cap  and  a brown 
bodice  with  white  collar  over  which  is  thrown  a 
white  kerchief.  The  table  is  covered  with  a crum- 
pled Turkish  rug,  on  which  are  a dish  of  fruit,  a 
cloth,  and  the  little  white  jug  which  often  appears 
in  Vermeer’s  compositions.  Behind  the  girl,  on 

260 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


the  wall,  is  a part  of  a picture  which  also  ap- 
pears in  the  Lady  at  the  Virginals  of  the  National 
Gallery  and  in  one  belonging  to  Mr.  H.  C.  Frick. 
To  the  right  of  this  is  seen  an  open  door  which 
opens  into  another  room  where  there  is  a table 
and  a picture  on  the  wall.  This  further  room  is 
an  interesting  detail,  since  it  is  the  only  instance 
of  this  sort  in  Vermeer’s  work,  although  quite 
common  with  De  Hooch.  On  the  wall,  near  the 
door-jamb,  is  seen  part  of  a map.  Part  of  a 
lion-headed  chair  fills  in  the  foreground  to  the 
extreme  right. 

Signed  to  the  left,  above  the  girl’s  head,  “ J.  V. 
Meer”  (the  V and  M intertwined). 

Canvas,  34  inches  by  29^  inches. 

Most  probably  the  Drunken  Servant  Girl  Sleep- 
ing by  a Table  of  the  1696  Sale.  Biirger-Thore 
supposed  that  he  had  refound  this  in  a picture 
he  owned  which  is  now  in  the  Widener  Collec- 
tion, Philadelphia. 

The  above  picture  was  in  the  Collection  of 
John  W.  Wilson,  Paris,  1881.  In  the  possession 
of  the  dealer,  M.  Sedelmeyer,  Paris,  1898.  In 
the  Collection  of  the  late  Rodolphe  Kann,  Paris. 
Purchased  by  Duveen  Bros.,  London,  1907. 

261 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Certain  artists  are  so  displeased  by  the  heavy 
technique  and  colour  of  this  that  they  do  not 
think  it  a Vermeer  at  all.  It  is  evident,  however, 
that  it  must  either  be  a Vermeer  or  an  imitation 
of  one.  And  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  a pla- 
giarist would  have  allowed  himself  such  a different 
scheme  of  composition  or  design  as  here  appears. 
He  would  hardly  have  opened  the  door  into  the 
other  room,  and  more  likely  would  have  tried 
more  for  the  Vermeer  quality  of  colour-tone.  In 
other  words,  the  picture’s  very  unlikeness  to  the 
best  Vermeers  is  one  of  the  things  which  leads  one 
to  believe  that  it  is  not  an  effort  at  forgery. 
Moreover,  the  quality  of  the  paint  appears  old, 
and  certainly  it  was  not  worth  while  to  attempt  a 
forgery  of  Vermeer  until  within  comparatively 
recent  years. 

One  is  a little  disappointed  at  first  sight  of  the 
original  of  this  picture,  because  the  tonality  is 
not  so  beautiful  as  in  many  of  Vermeer’s  works. 
It  is,  indeed,  a trifle  heavy  and  hot,  and  the  man- 
ner of  painting  is  rather  more  heavy-handed  than  in 
Vermeer’s  very  best  period.  This,  together  with 
its  size,  leads  one  to  place  the  time  of  its  painting 
before  the  conversation-pieces  and  the  portraits, 
but  after  such  pictures  as  the  Courtesan , the  Toilet 

262 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


of  Diana , Mary  and  Martha , the  Milkwoman , 
the  TzVw  of  Delft , and  the  Street  in  Delfty  which, 
from  their  manner  of  painting,  would  seem  to  be 
comparatively  early.  A number  of  the  stigmata 
of  his  later  work  appear  in  this  picture  — the 
lion-headed  chair,  the  little  white  jug,  the  end  of 
the  map  roller,  the  picture  with  the  Cupid,  and 
the  crumpled  Oriental  rug  — so  that  one  would 
judge  that  the  picture  must  have  been  painted  at 
a time  not  far  removed  from  the  rest  of  these. 
Yet  from  the  internal  evidence  of  heavy  technique 
and  rather  hot  colour  one  guesses  that  this  may 
have  been  among  the  first  of  such  a series. 

In  looking  very  carefully  over  details  one  finds 
many  things  both  good  and  bad  which  are  in- 
structive. The  whitish  wall,  to  begin  with,  is  very 
beautiful  in  its  graduations  — indeed  quite  mar- 
vellous. And  so  also  is  the  wall  of  the  back  room. 
The  jug,  as  is  usual  with  Vermeer’s  still-life,  is 
very  good,  but  the  half  lights  are  too  hot.  The 
dish  on  the  table  is  wonderful  in  painting.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  fruit  is  not  so  good.  The  cloth 
is  bad.  The  glass  looks  like  lace.  Characteristi- 
cally of  Vermeer  the  fringe  of  the  rug,  quite  at 
the  outside  of  the  picture,  is  painted  with  sin- 
gular felicity;  indeed  the  whole  rug  is  beautifully 

263 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


done.  As  to  the  head  the  nose  is  well  painted  and 
the  mouth  is  excellently  made.  Unfortunately  the 
high-lights  are  wrong  — the  high-light  on  the 
cheek  especially  being  too  high.  The  planes,  how- 
ever, seem  carefully  studied.  The  hand  is  rather 
good. 

The  picture  as  a whole  seems  richer  in  tone  — 
heavier,  and  “fatter,”  as  artists  say,  in  paint 
quality  — than  are  many  of  Vermeer’s  pictures. 
At  the  same  time  it  gives  one  the  impression  that 
it  has  been  over-cleaned. 

A YOUNG  GIRL  WITH  A FLUTE 

In  the  possession  of  Knoedler  and  Company 

A young  girl  sits  facing  the  spectator;  she 
leans  slightly  to  her  left.  In  her  left  hand  is  a 
yellow  flute.  On  her  head  is  a curious  hat  of  pyra- 
midal shape,  striped  with  brown,  yellowish-grey, 
and  white.  She  wears  a greyish-blue  bodice  with 
white  cuffs  and  stomacher;  about  her  neck  is  a 
white  kerchief.  The  chair  she  sits  in  is  deco- 
rated with  the  well-known  lion’s  head.  The  back- 
ground is  a piece  of  tapestry,  of  a large  design, 
in  brown,  greenish-grey,  and  dark  blue. 

Oak  panel,  8 inches  by  7 inches. 

264 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

A YOUNG  GIRL  WITH  A FLUTE 

In  the  Possession  of  M.  Knoedi.er  and  Company,  New 
York,  London  and  Paris 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Discovered  by  Dr.  Bredius  in  1906.  Exhibited 
on  loan  at  the  Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The 
Hague. 

Later  in  the  Collection  of  Jonkheer  de  Grez, 
Brussels. 

This  painting  is  apparently  a start.  Curiously 
enough,  when  one  considers  it  is  by  Vermeer  the 
picture  is  rather  hot  in  colour.  This  comes  from 
its  being  painted  on  a mahogany  panel  the  colour 
of  which  has  “come  through.” 

WOMAN  WEIGHING  GOLD 

Collection  of  P.  A.  B.  Widener,  Philadelphia 

A lady  stands  near  an  open  window  weighing 
gold,  or  it  may  be  that  she  is  testing  the  weights 
of  her  scales  in  order  shortly  to  weigh  some  pearls 
that  lie  nearby.  Hence  the  picture  is  sometimes 
called  A Woman  Weighing  Pearls.  She  wears  a 
dark  blue  jacket  trimmed  with  ermine  with  a red 
and  yellow  under-jacket.  The  table  cover  is  of 
dark  blue  and  the  window  curtain  an  orange 
yellow.  Behind  her  hangs  a large  picture  appar- 
ently of  the  Last  Judgment.  The  floor  is  in 
black  and  white  tiling  or  marble. 

Panel,  16 % inches  by  14  inches. 

265 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Sales:  Amsterdam,  1696;  Amsterdam,  1701; 

Nieuhof,  Amsterdam,  1 777;  Munich,  1826;  Cas- 
imir-Perier,  London,  1848;  bought  in  by  M. 
Casimir-Perier,  Jr. 

This  particular  sort  of  composition  was  a 
favourite  one  with  Vermeer,  and  is  indeed  the 
typical  one  by  which  one  would  indicate  him  in  a 
pastiche  or  a caricature.  One  need  hardly  point 
out  that  he  tried  the  same  general  arrangement 
no  less  than  four  times:  to  wit,  in  the  Reader  of 
the  Dresden  Gallery,  the  Woman  Reading  in 
the  Rijks  Museum,  the  Pearl  Necklace  of  the 
Berlin  Gallery,  and  in  the  one  now  under  discus- 
sion. This  latter  most  resembles  the  Berlin  example 
both  in  placement  on  the  canvas  and  in  technique; 
so  that  one  is  perhaps  justified  in  supposing  that  it 
was  painted  at  about  the  same  time. 

The  lady  in  the  picture  represents  an  older  and 
it  may  be  a more  distinguished  type  than  does 
the  Berlin  example;  indeed,  one  does  not  remember 
to  have  seen  just  this  type  in  any  of  Vermeer’s 
other  works. 

Not  only  is  this  painting  very  typical  of  Vermeer 
in  arrangement  but  in  colour  as  well.  The  picture 
with  its  insistence  on  blue  and  yellow  notes, 
its  larger  secondary  masses  of  white  and  of  black, 

2 66 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


is  very  characteristic  of  Vermeer.  And  while 
certain  others  of  the  Delft  School,  noticeably 
Willem  Kalf,  the  still-life  painter,  delighted  in 
arrangements  in  which  yellow  and  blue  were  pre- 
dominant, they  did  not  paint  the  figure  with  Ver- 
meer’s skill. 

This  picture  evidently  was  highly  esteemed  in 
Vermeer’s  day.  The  fact  that  in  the  1696  Sale  it 
is  described  as  being  in  a “case”  — which  was 
probably  one  of  those  folding  frames  or  shrines 
which  were  not  uncommon  in  those  days  — shows 
that  it  was  considered  a fine  thing.  The  price, 
too,  155  gulden  or  florins,  shows  that  it  was  highly 
valued.  In  this  sale  only  the  Milkwoman , 175 
florins,  and  the  View  of  Delft , 200  florins,  realised 
more  than  this  particular  picture.  Curiously 
enough,  the  Lady  Adorning  Herself  — supposed  to 
be  the  Pearl  Necklace  now  in  the  Kaiser  Frie- 
drich Museum,  a picture  at  least  as  fine  — only 
brought  30  florins. 


GIRL  WITH  MANDOLIN 

Collection  of  John  G.  Johnson,  Philadelphia 

A young  girl,  sitting  to  the  left  of  the  picture 
and  fronting  the  spectator,  is  playing  a mandolin. 

267 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Her  smiling  face  is  turned  to  her  right.  She  is 
dressed  in  a yellow  jacket  trimmed  with  ermine; 
her  skirt  is  of  white  satin.  Behind  her  hangs  a 
landscape  in  a gold  frame.  On  the  right  behind 
is  a table  with  a blue  cover. 

Signed  in  full. 

Canvas,  1934  inches  by  i634  inches,  H.  d.  G. 
In  Dr.  Valentiner’s  Hudson-Fulton  Catalogue  size 
is  given  2oJ4  inches  by  17  inches. 

Probably  the  Young  Woman  Playing  the  Guitar 
of  the  1696  Sale.  Formerly  belonged  to  M.  de 
Gruyter,  Amsterdam,  then  to  the  Cremer  Col- 
lection, Brussels,  to  Lord  Iveagh’s  Collection, 
and  afterwards  to  the  Bisschoffsheim  Collection, 
London. 

The  picture  is  supposed  to  be  one  of  two 
( The  Love-Letter  of  the  Beit  Collection  being  the 
other)  with  which  Vermeer’s  widow  redeemed  a 
debt  of  617  florins  after  his  death. 

This  painting  has  a more  sketchy  appear- 
ance than  do  most  of  Vermeer’s.  Many  things 
in  it  seem  slightly  done;  and  as  Vermeer’s  peculiar 
excellence  was  his  manner  of  carrying  every  de- 
tail to  its  farthest  point,  the  difference  of  this 
picture  from  the  rest  is  indeed  marked.  One  gets 

268 


fan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

A LADY 


PLAYING  THE  GUITAR 
Collection  of  John  G.  Johnson,  Philadelphia 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


the  idea,  in  looking  the  picture  over  carefully, 
that  the  artist  — as  even  the  best  of  painters 
sometimes  do  — made  a poor  start  and  decided 
to  abandon  this  particular  picture  and  so  left  it 
unfinished.  There  are  excellent  bits  in  the  paint- 
ing: the  picture  on  the  wall,  the  wall  itself,  the 
mandolin,  — all  are  painted  with  a marked 
degree  of  skill  and  a sense  of  the  relation  of 
things. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  face  seems  quite  badly 
made.  The  eyes,  which  Vermeer  sometimes  made 
so  beautifully,  are  rather  clumsily  roughed-in,  so 
that  one  cannot  avoid  the  impression  that  he 
meant  to  go  on  further  with  them.  Something 
the  same  might  be  said  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  mouth  is  indicated. 

The  light  and  shade  on  the  forehead  and  on 
the  cheek  are  hardly  so  well  understood  as  in 
some  of  Vermeer’s  very  finest  performances. 

Apart  from  certain  felicities  in  the  rendering  of 
still-life,  what  really  makes  the  picture  worth 
while  is  the  placing  or  setting  of  the  picture  on 
the  canvas.  The  picture  is  well  composed,  not 
so  remarkable  in  design  as  are  some  of  his  pictures, 
but  distinctly  agreeable  and  original  in  its  place- 
ment. One  says  original  because,  while  compared 

269 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


to  modern  paintings  it  may  not  seem  particu- 
larly so,  it  is,  compared  to  the  pictures  of  Ver- 
meer’s time,  quite  original  in  its  setting. 

England 

A YOUNG  LADY  AT  THE  VIRGINALS 

National  Gallery,  London 

A young  woman,  standing  in  profile  in  the  pre- 
cise middle  of  the  picture,  looks  over  her  right 
shoulder  at  the  spectator.  Her  two  hands  lightly 
touch  the  keys  of  a pair  of  virginals,  before  which 
she  stands.  She  is  richly  dressed  in  a blue  silk 
bodice  over  which  a sort  of  mantle  trimmed  with 
lace  appears,  and  she  has  a string  of  pearls  about 
her  neck.  Her  skirt  is  of  white  satin.  The  vir- 
ginals, severe  in  line,  show  the  inside  of  the  cover 
decorated  with  a landscape  in  the  Italianate  man- 
ner. On  the  wall,  behind  the  lady,  is  a picture 
of  Cupid,  who  seems  to  be  holding  up  the  lucky 
number.  The  frame  is  black.  To  the  left  of  this 
hangs  a smaller  picture,  a landscape  in  an  ornate 
gold  frame.  The  light  comes  through  a leaded 
window,  as  usual  at  the  extreme  left  of  the  com- 
position; there  is  a curtain  above  this.  The  floor 

270 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


is  of  tessellated  pavement  in  black  and  white. 
The  wall  is  of  the  usual  nondescript  Vermeer 
colour,  and  Delft  tiles  form  a sort  of  baseboard. 
Telling  against  these  at  the  extreme  right  and 

quite  in  the  foreground  stands  a chair  upholstered 
in  blue  velvet. 

Signed  “J.  v.  Meer  ” (the  J and  M inter- 
twined). 

Canvas,  20  inches  by  18  inches. 

Possibly  the  Lady  Playing  a Spinet  of  the 
Sale  of  1696. 

Has  belonged  to  the  Danser-Nyman  Collection; 
to  the  Solly  Collection  of  London;  to  Biirger- 
Thore  and  later  to  Madame  Lacroix  at  Paris. 
Bought  for  the  National  Gallery  in  1892  by 
Lawrie  and  Co.,  from  the  Biirger-Thore  Sale, 
Paris,  December  5,  1892. 

Although  this  picture  is  very  fine  in  design  and 
space  filling,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  one’s  first 
sight  of  the  original  is  a decided  shock.  Pre- 
sumably the  painting  was  originally  of  the  full 
colour  of  nature.  But,  apparently  through  over- 
cleaning, it  has  acquired  a greenish  tone  which 
is  most  unpleasant.  It  has  been,  to  use  the 
artist’s  term,  “skinned.”  It  has  been  suggested 

271 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

that  Vermeer  sometimes  painted  his  pictures  on  a 
bluish  ground,  possibly  using  glazes  — yellow 
lake  and  the  like.  If  these  faded  or  were  rubbed 
off,  the  result  would  undoubtedly  be  much  like 
the  present  picture.  There  is  altogether  too 
much  cleaning  of  pictures.  Very  few  men  are 
competent  to  clean  an  old  master  properly,  and 
those  are  apt  to  be  among  the  most  cautious  of 
cleaners.  It  is  sickening  to  think  how  quickly  and 
easily  a rash  intruding  “expert”  may  ruin  the 
work  of  a great  master. 

Technically,  this  picture  is  among  the  most 
skilful  of  Vermeer’s  work.  He  has  quite  over- 
come the  rather  stodgy  handling  of  his  youth,  and 
everything  is  here  made  crisply  and  neatly 
perhaps  too  much  so,  for  one  somehow  gets  the 
idea  that  he  meant  to  work  over  the  thing  and 
bring  it  together;  or  perhaps  the  lost  glazes  sup- 
plied just  that  ensemble. 

The  satin  skirt  is  painted  with  surprising 
skill.  Indeed  there  is  no  place  where  he  falters 
as  in  some  of  his  other  pictures,  unless  it  be 
in  the  ridiculous  curls  that  adorn  the  fore- 
head of  the  lady.  Even  here  one  feels  that 
our  artist  was  more  or  less  the  victim  of  a fool- 
ish style. 

272 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A YOUNG  LADY  AT  THE  VIRGINALS 

National  Gallery,  London 


w*rs.  ] ' ,ick  fling  to  think  how  quickly  anc* 

-udmg  “expert”  may  ruin  tfce 

T3.13CI  •TO  333I/5I3V  MAI 


V ; mi'll  so,  for  one  somehow  gets  the 
meant  to  work  over  the  thing  ad 

Even  here  one  feel:’  u;1 

ish  style. 


B 1 

|d  > >1  5?  ' t 

VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


A YOUNG  LADY  SEATED  AT  THE  SPINET 

National  Gallery,  London 

A young  girl  in  blue  sits  facing  a marbled 
spinet  on  the  left  of  the  picture.  Her  hands 
touch  the  keys,  and  her  head  is  turned  toward 
the  spectator.  On  the  inside  of  the  piano 

cover  which  is  thrown  backward,  is  a landscape. 
In  the  extreme  foreground  to  the  left  is  a ’cello, 
partly  cut  off  by  the  side  and  lower  lines  of  the 
picture.  A large  tapestry  curtain,  of  the  sort 
that  often  appears  in  Vermeer’s  later  pictures, 
somewhat  obscures  the  light  from  the  window  at 
the  left.  A big  picture  containing  three  figures 
hangs  behind  the  girl’s  head.  Delft  tiles  form  a 
baseboard  to  the  wall.  The  floor  is  in  black  and 
white  squares. 

Signed  on  wall  to  right  of  girl’s  head,  “ J.  v. 
Meer”  (the  J and  M intertwined). 

Canvas,  20  inches  by  17)^  inches. 

Possibly  No.  37  of  the  1696  Sale.  Sold  from 
the  Pommersfelden  Gallery,  Paris,  1867;  later  at 
the  Biirger-Thore  Sale,  Paris,  1892,  for  25,000 
francs  ($5000).  Was  in  the  Collection  of  George 
Salting. 


273 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


There  are  many  paintings  by  Vermeer  that 
have  more  of  charm  or  artistry  than  this,  but  it  is 
interesting  from  the  extreme  ease  and  skilful 
freedom  of  its  technique.  It  has,  indeed,  in  this 
sense  the  defects  of  its  qualities.  Everything 
has  gone  so  easily  that  Vermeer  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  tempted  to  work  over  it,  so  that 
the  picture  lacks  a little  in  quality.  The  drap- 
ery, for  instance,  is  done  with  notable  ease 
and  freedom.  The  artist  does  not  seem  to  have 
had  any  of  his  former  difficulties  and  fumblings; 
the  thing  is  done  in  a forthright  way,  as  if  it 
were  easy. 

But  from  this  very  ease  come  certain  disad- 
vantages. The  drapery  is  painted  too  much  en 
longue ; that  is,  the  touch  seems  to  run  too  much 
with  the  form.  One  does  not  get  the  sense  of  the 
light  sliding  across  it  so  much  as  in  certain  others 
of  his  works. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  head  is  painted  with  a 
good  deal  of  sophistication,  with  due  regard  to 
the  sense  of  light.  Only,  one  feels  this  end  to  be 
the  result  of  skill  rather  than  that  intense  and 
naif  observation  which  has  been  so  often  Ver- 
meer’s hall-mark.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
the  nose  is  modelled  in  the  same  manner  as  is  the 

274 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Young  Girl  of  the  Hague  Museum.  Only  the 
observation  is  not  so  close. 

The  more  one  looks  over  this  picture  the  more 
one  feels  it  to  be  an  extremely  skilful  perform- 
ance even  for  Vermeer.  There  is  no  faltering 
anywhere:  merely,  one  does  not  feel  that  the  obser- 
vation of  nuances  is  carried  so  far  as  in  many 
of  his  other  pictures. 

YOUNG  GIRL  AT  THE  SPINET 

Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London 

A young  girl  sits  at  a spinet,  which  is  at  the 
extreme  left  of  the  picture.  She  turns  her  head 
in  three  quarters  toward  the  spectator.  Her 
hands  lie  on  the  keys  of  the  spinet.  She  wears 
a shawl  over  a dress  of  white  satin.  Only  part  of 
the  spinet  is  seen. 

Canvas,  9*^2  inches  by  7^  inches. 

Sale:  W.  Reyers,  Amsterdam,  1714. 

A LOVE-LETTER  (also  called  Young  Lady  Writing) 

Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London 

A young  lady  at  the  right  of  the  composition 
sits  facing  the  spectator,  as  she  writes  a letter.  A 

275 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

servant,  almost  in  the  middle  of  the  picture,  stands 
with  folded  hands  and  looks  over  her  shoulder 
toward  the  window.  The  young  lady  wears  a 
quaint  cap.  Her  bodice  is  low  cut  with  short 
sleeves.  The  picture  is  lighted  by  a stained  glass 
window  at  the  left.  Part  of  this  window  is  cov- 
ered by  a thin  curtain,  the  upper  part  of  which  is 
irradiated  with  translucent  light.  A large  portiere 
at  the  extreme  left  obscures  part  of  the  window. 
On  the  wall,  behind  both  figures,  hangs  a very  large 
picture  which  seems  to  represent  the  Finding  of 
Moses.  The  wall  itself  is  of  a discreet  grey. 

The  table  is  covered  with  the  usual  Vermeer 
rug  of  reddish  hue.  A chair  covered  with  velvet 
fills  in  the  foreground  of  the  right-hand  corner. 
The  floor  is  in  black  and  white  marble  pavement. 

Signed  on  a sheet  of  paper  hanging  from  the 
table  in  shadow,  “J.  v.  Meer”  (the  J and  M in- 
tertwined). 

Canvas,  27^  inches  by  23  inches. 

Given  in  security  for  a debt,  together  with  the 
Lady  Playing  a Guitar  by  Catharina  Bolnes,  for 
617  florins  ($246). 

Bleiswijck  Collection,  Delft.  Collection  of  Hen- 
drik van  Slingeland,  the  Hague,  1752.  Collec- 

276 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


tion  of  Muller  van  Aichholz,  Vienna,  Secretan  Sale, 
Paris,  1889.  In  the  Marinoni  Collection,  Paris. 
In  the  Collection  of  the  late  Alfred  Beit,  London. 

The  noticeable  thing  about  this  picture  is  that 
the  chiaroscuro  is  more  marked  in  effect  than  in 
many  of  Vermeer’s  paintings.  It  is,  in  short, 
more  Rembrandtesque  in  effect,  though  certainly 
the  technique  is  unlike  him.  The  reflected  lights 
are  less  marked,  and  the  picture  depends  less  for 
its  composition  on  linear  design  than  do  many  of 
our  painter’s  pictures.  On  the  other  hand,  its 
effectiveness  in  light  and  dark  masses  is  largely 
gained  by  chiaroscuro  — much  more,  as  we  have 
said,  than  in  much  of  Vermeer’s  work. 

It  is  one  of  the  most  complete  technical  per- 
formances of  the  artist  that  we  have.  There  are 
really  no  weak  places  in  it,  and  the  picture  is 
“fatter”  — as  artists  say  — in  paint  quality  than 
are  some  of  Vermeer’s. 

LADY  AND  GENTLEMAN  AT  A SPINET  (or  The  Music 

Lesson) 

Windsor  Castle,  England 

At  the  further  end  of  a large  room,  somewhat 
to  the  right  of  the  canvas,  stand  a lady  and  a 

277 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


gentleman.  The  woman,  whose  back  is  turned  to 
the  spectator,  touches  the  piano.  The  man, 
standing  in  profile  something  to  the  right,  regards 
the  lady  attentively.  The  spinet  is  of  very  or- 
nate design,  the  cover  being  raised.  Behind  it 
hangs  a mirror  which  reflects  the  head  and  shoul- 
ders of  the  young  woman.  The  light  of  the  room 
comes  through  quaint  windows  of  leaded  glass, 
very  much  to  the  left.  The  floor  is  in  tessellated 
marbles  of  black  and  white.  In  the  extreme  fore- 
ground at  the  right-hand  side  of  the  picture  is  a 
table  covered  by  the  well-known  Oriental  rug.  On 
this  is  a salver  which  carries  the  little  white  jug 
which  appears  in  so  many  Vermeers.  Somewhat 
behind  and  to  the  left  of  these,  directly  in  front  of 
the  young  lady,  stands  a chair  studded  with  brass 
nails,  while  a violoncello  lies  near  by  upon  the  floor. 

Canvas,  29  inches  by  25  inches. 

Exhibited  at  the  Royal  Academy,  Winter  Exhibi- 
tion, 1876,  and  at  the  London  Guildhall,  1895. 

Many  artists  consider  this  picture  to  be  the  finest 
in  design  of  any  that  Vermeer  has  made.  It  cer- 
tainly is  one  of  his  best  designs,  and  it  may  be 
said  for  it  that  its  pattern  is  not  quite  so  obvious 
as  it  is  in  several  of  his  other  beautiful  compositions. 

278 


LADY  AT  THE  VIRGINALS  AND  A GENTLEMAN 
Royal  Collection',  Windsor  Castle 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


The  uninitiate  might  regard  it  as  merely  a man 
and  a woman  standing  rather  far  back  in  a room. 
But  when  one  comes  to  look  the  thing  over  and 
to  study  it  carefully,  one  discovers  that  there  is 
not  an  inch  in  the  design  which  is - not  carefully 
dovetailed  into  the  next  bit. 

Note  the  way  in  which  the  gallant’s  shoulder 
comes  against  the  picture  behind  him;  how  beauti- 
fully his  head  and  shoulders  fill  the  wall  space 
behind  him;  the  manner  in  which  his  loose  cuff 
fills  the  space  from  the  coat  to  the  spinet.  Ob- 
serve how  the  woman’s  head  just  breaks  the  short 
upper  line  of  the  spinet  cover;  and  how  her  sleeve 
comes  at  precisely  the  right  place  in  relation  to  the 
keyboard;  how  the  panier  of  her  dress  cuts  the 
lower  line  of  the  spinet  in  just  the  right  manner. 
The  picture  is  full  of  such  felicities  as  these,  and 
it  is  the  sum  total  of  just  such  things  that  makes 
the  design  so  beautiful. 

\ 

This  picture  is  supposed  to  be  No.  6 of  the 
1696  Sale,  and  very  possibly  it  is  so.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  believe,  however,  that  even  at  that  time 
so  large  a picture  of  so  high  a degree  of  finish 
should  have  sold  for  95  florins,  when  a picture 
hardly  more  than  a sketch  like  the  Lady  with  a 
Guitar  sold  for  70  florins. 

279 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


CHRIST  AT  THE  HOUSE  OF  MARTHA  AND  MARY 

Coats  Collection,  Skalmorlie  Castle,  Scotland 

The  figure  of  Christ,  which  is  life  size,  sits  in 
profile  to  the  right  of  the  canvas.  He  looks  up 
at  Martha,  who  leans  toward  Him  with  a basket, 
in  which  is  seen  a loaf  of  bread.  His  left  hand 
hangs  over  the  arm  of  His  chair.  His  right  hand 
is  pointed  toward  Mary,  who  sits  at  His  feet  in 
the  lower  left-hand  foreground  of  the  picture.  He 
is  clad  in  a dull  blue  garment.  Martha  wears  a 
curious  yellow  kerchief.  Her  bodice  is  a yel- 
low check  with  red  border;  her  arms  are  cov- 
ered by  white  sleeves.  Mary  has  a parti-coloured 
cloth  of  white  and  red  on  her  head  and  shoul- 
ders. She  is  dressed  in  blue  and  red.  Her  head 
is  relieved  against  a white  table-cloth.  Behind 
her  shows  an  Oriental  rug  which  seems  to  be  the 
under-cloth  of  the  table.  One  can  trace  the  pin- 
timento  of  the  right  hand  of  Christ  originally  in 
a slightly  different  position. 

Signed  on  the  bench  on  which  Mary  sits,  “V. 
Meer.” 

Formerly  in  possession  of  the  dealers,  Forbes 
and  Paterson,  London,  1901. 

280 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


While  this  picture  is  by  no  means  among  the 
most  beautiful  of  Vermeer’s  productions  it  has 
for  us  a certain  interest  as  being  apparently  one 
°f  his  earliest  pictures,  and  also  because  it  is 
life  size.  It  is  the  only  one  besides  The  Courtesan 
which  the  artist  made  so  large.  It  would  seem  as 
if  his  early  practice  in  painting  large  canvases  had 
made  him  treat  smaller  ones  in  a larger  manner 
than  did  some  of  the  other  painters  of  little  con- 
versation-pieces. It  is  rather  heavily  painted  with 
a full  flowing  brush  which  is  managed  with  a hand, 
that,  for  Vermeer,  seems  rather  clumsy.  The  finest 
thing  about  it  is  the  light  and  shade. 


Holland 

A GIRL  READING  A LETTER  (sometimes  called  The  Reader) 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 

A young  woman  stands  in  the  middle  of  the  pic- 
ture, facing  toward  the  left.  She  wears  a light 
blue  silk  dressing  sacque  with  a whitish  skirt. 
She  is  reading  a letter  held  in  both  hands. 

In  front  of  her  is  a table  on  which  are  a crum- 
pled rug  and  a parchment-covered  book.  Behind 
this  table  is  a chair  on  which  appear  the  lions’ 

281 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

heads.  Behind  her  on  a wall  of  Vermeer  grey 
hangs  a large  map.  In  the  immediate  foreground 
at  the  extreme  right  is  another  chair. 

The  whole  picture  is  lighted  by  a window,  di- 
vined rather  than  seen,  to  the  left. 

Canvas,  19^  inches  by  16  inches. 

Sales:  Ten  Kate,  Amsterdam,  1801.  Paris,  1809. 
Lapeyriere,  Paris,  1825.  Sommariva,  Paris,  1839. 
Was  in  the  Van  der  Hoop  Collection,  Amster- 
dam. 

Perhaps  no  picture  is  more  thoroughly  charac- 
teristic of  Vermeer  than  is  this.  In  arrangement, 
in  colour,  and  in  technique  it  tells  of  his  handi- 
work. The  arrangement,  while  apparently  some- 
thing like  the  Pearl  Necklace  of  the  Berlin  Mu- 
seum and  the  Girl  Reading  of  the  Dresden  Gallery, 
is,  in  reality,  subtly  different. 

The  window  is  left  out;  as  far  as  one  remembers 
it  is  the  only  one  of  Vermeer’s  genre  pictures  in 
which  this  happens.  One  divines  its  presence  be- 
yond the  picture  by  the  beautiful  sense  of  light 
which  irradiates  the  canvas. 

In  no  picture  has  he  been  more  successful  in 
suggesting  the  sense  of  light  sliding  across  the 
wall  and  the  map.  The  map,  in  short,  is  one  of 

282 


A 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


his  masterpieces,  as  fine  in  its  way  as  the  map 
in  the  Studio  of  the  Czernin  Collection. 

The  whole  thing  is  extremely  well  spaced,  and 
the  arrangement  of  light  and  dark  masses  — the 
“notan”  of  which  we  have  already  spoken  — is  partic- 
ularly good  and  effective.  Note  especially  the 
way  in  which  the  chair,  placed  in  the  right  fore- 
ground, breaks  the  upright  line  of  the  side  of  the 
picture  and  fills  in  the  lower  part  connecting  with 
the  skirt. 

The  study  of  edges  throughout  is  remarkable. 

An  admirable  bit,  small  in  itself,  but  very  im- 
portant from  its  relation  to  the  whole,  is  the 
knob  of  the  map-stick.  It  is  wonderfully  studied 
and  finished  and  yet  takes  its  place  perfectly 
well.  This  is  one  of  those  little  mysteries  of  which 
Vermeer  had  the  copyright. 

The  curious  dark  mark  against  the  woman’s 
cheek  is  apparently  the  suggestion  of  a black  rib- 
bon fastened  at  the  side  of  the  hair. 

It  is  a curious  instance  of  the  admiration  of 
artists  for  Vermeer,  that  even  so  advanced  a 
type  as  Vincent  Van  Gogh,  the  so-called  Post- 
Impressionist,  spoke  well  of  him.  In  his  “Letters,” 
as  we  have  seen,  he  says,  on  page  62,  “Do  you  know 
a painter  called  Jan  van  der  Meer?  He  painted  a 

283 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


very  distinguished  and  beautiful  Dutch  woman,  in 
pregnancy.  The  scale  of  colours  of  this  strange 
artist  consists  of  blue,  lemon-yellow,  pearl-grey, 
black,  and  white.  It  is  true  in  the  few  pictures 
he  painted  the  whole  range  of  his  palette  is  to 
be  found;  but  it  is  just  as  characteristic  of  him 
to  place  lemon-yellow,  dull  blue,  and  light  grey 
together,  as  it  is  of  Velasquez  to  harmonise  black, 
white,  grey,  and  pink.  . . . The  Dutchmen  had 
no  imagination,  but  they  had  tremendous  taste 
and  an  unerring  sense  of  composition.” 


A MAID-SERVANT  POURING  OUT  MILK 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 

A young  woman  stands  at  a table  pouring  some 
milk  from  a jug  into  a mug  or  bowl.  She  wears  a 
white  kerchief  and  is  dressed  in  a bodice  and  skirt. 
On  the  green-covered  table  is  a basket  with  bread; 
bread  also  lies  on  the  table.  Behind  the  basket 
stands  a covered  pitcher.  The  light  comes  from 
a window  to  the  left  high  up  in  the  composition. 
A basket  and  a brass  utensil  hang  beyond  it; 
above  these,  at  the  extreme  upper  part  of  the  can- 
vas, hangs  a small  pitcher.  The  wall  is  quite 
blank  save  for  two  nails,  painted  with  meticulous 

284 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A GIRL  READING  A LETTER 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 


very  ( la^  nguishrd  1 viutifu!  I )u  r.h  * < >an,  in 

qi  colours  rA  this  strcoge 
mist  consist  • . • \ k'nion-ycilov  , peari-grey, 

black,  and  while  It  is  true  in  the  few  pictures 
painted  th*  ' vc  range  o;  his  paiette  is  to 
t " found;  bu*  .<  i just  as  characteristic  of  him 

:>f  Velasquez  to  harmonise  black, 

white,  (r'y\  id  pink.  . . . The  Lhltchmen  had 

T3.13G  30  5I33Mfl3V  HAl 
H3TTHJ  A DV11QA33  J5110  A 

ryi/a»aT2i/A  .MuaEuM 

; r u scum,  Amsterdam. 


' . r i*>wi.  She  weaftxflt 

table.  Hchiud  the  jt 


j high  up  ill  the » composition, 
■.vs  utensil  ‘hang  beyond  it; 

pitcher.  The  wall  is  quite 
■ it-\  painted  v»nth  meticulous 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


care.  On  the  floor  at  the  right  and  behind  the 
woman’s  figure  is  a wooden  foot-warmer.  Tiles 
form  a sort  of  baseboard  to  the  wall. 

Signed, “ J.  V.  Meer”  (the  J and  M intertwined). 

Canvas,  18  inches  by  16)^  inches. 

Sale  of  1696,  175  florins  ($60);  in  1701,  320 
florins  ($128);  Van  Hoek  Sale,  1719,  126  florins 
($49.40);  Neuville  Sale,  1765,  560  florins  ($224); 
De  Bruyn  Sale,  1799,  1550  florins  ($720).  Sold  in 
1813  for  2113  florins  ($846).  Bought  in  1907  for  the 
Rijks  Museum  of  M.  Six  van  Vromade,  together  with 
thirty-eight  other  pictures,  for  750,000  florins. 
It  was  then  considered  to  be  worth  nearly  half 
this  sum,  possibly  300,000  florins  ($120,000). 

The  Milk-woman  is  one  of  the  few  paintings  that 
have  always  been  known  and  accredited  to  Ver- 
meer. In  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds’  diary  of  a “Jour- 
ney in  Holland”  he  speaks  of  seeing  this  pic- 
ture when  at  Amsterdam.  It  is  apparently  one 
of  Vermeer’s  earlier  paintings:  the  facture  is  rather 
heavy  and  loaded,  and  little  things,  like  the 
woman’s  kerchief,  are  not  done  so  skilfully  as  in 
pictures  of  a later  date.  While  it  is  a fine  painting, 
it  can  hardly  be  ranked  among  the  half-dozen 
very  great  ones  of  Vermeer.  Still  there  is  a 

285 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Millet-like  solidity  and  firmness  about  this  • figure 
— a Biblical  simplicity  — that  is  very  fine.  The 
thing  exists;  the  light  and  shade,  well  and  simply 
rendered,  gives  one  the  illusion  of  solidity. 


THE  LOVE-LETTER 

Rijks  Museum,  Amsterdam 

Through  an  open  door  the  seated  figure  of  a 
lady  is  seen;  her  body  is  facing  the  spectator,  but 
her  head  turns  sharply  to  her  right.  In  her  right 
hand  she  holds  a letter,  which  has  just  been 
handed  to  her  by  a smiling  maid-servant.  In  her 
left  hand  she  holds  the  handle  of  a lute.  She 
is  dressed  in  a jacket  trimmed  with  ermine;  her 
skirt  is  of  silk.  About  her  neck  are  pearls,  and 
pearls  are  in  her  hair.  The  maid-servant  stands 
to  her  right,  somewhat  behind,  looking  down  at 
her  mistress.  Her  deft  arm  is  akimbo  while  her 
right  hand  is  at  her  side.  Nearby  stands  a scrap- 
basket,  and  a cushion  box,  apparently  the  same 
one  which  appears  in  the  Lace-Maker , is  in  front, 
with  strands  of  coloured  silks  issuing  from  it. 
Behind  the  lady,  on  the  wall,  is  some  gilt  Span- 
ish leather,  while  two  pictures  hang  above  it. 
Somewhat  to  the  left  is  a mantelpiece  with  col- 

286 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


umns.  The  foreground  is  filled  in  to  the  right 
by  a large  Gobelins  tapestry  which  is  draped 
above  and  at  the  side  of  the  door.  In  front  of 
this  appears  a chair  in  which  are  some  sheets  of 
music.  At  the  other  side  of  the  door  hangs,  in 
sharp  perspective,  a map.  The  floor  is  in  black  and 
white  squares.  A pair  of  wooden  shoes  and  a long- 
handled  brush  fill  in  the  front. 

Signed  on  the  wall  above  the  basket  work, 
“J.  V.  Meer”  (the  J and  M intertwined). 

Canvas,  17^  inches  by  15  inches. 

Possibly  the  picture  of  the  1696  Sale,  A Lady  to 
whom  a Maid-Servant  is  bringing  a Letter,  which  sold 
for  70  florins  ($28).  Bought  by  the  State  for 
45,000  florins  ($18,000). 

One  does  not  get  a very  good  idea  of  this  pic- 
ture from  the  photographic  reproductions,  because 
they  bring  out  the  foreground  too  light  and  too 
much  in  detail.  One’s  eye  really  focusses  at  once 
on  the  figure  of  the  lady  with  the  letter,  and  one  is 
but  dimly  aware  of  the  chair  and  accessories  in 
the  foreground,  which  appear  darker  and  vaguer 
than  in  the  reproduction. 

Apparently  this  picture  was  painted  rather  late 
in  Vermeer’s  life  — one  would  guess  at  about  the 

287 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

time  of  the  Czernin  Gallery  Studio.  One  gets  this 
idea  from  the  technical  perfection  of  certain  bits, 
like  the  tessellated  flooring  and  the  mantel  behind 
the  lady’s  hand.  It  is  true  that  the  servant  is  not 
very  well  done  — but  the  lady’s  head,  though 
“queer,”  is  yet  an  admirable  piece  of  light  and 
shade.  This  is,  indeed,  the  reason  for  its  un- 
expected appearance  — for  there  is  nothing  so 
strange  as  humanity  when  viewed  freshly  and 
without  prejudice.  Vermeer  saw  and  rendered 
this  head  with  the  same  uncompromising  direct- 
ness and  aloofness  with  which  he  saw  and  ren- 
dered the  scrap-basket.  Apparently  one  meant 
as  little  to  him  as  the  other,  except  that  the 
head,  being  the  focussing  point,  is  more  closely 
rendered  in  detail.  This  aloofness  of  sympathy 
is  often  to  be  noted  in  great  artists:  one  sees 
the  same  thing  in  Velasquez  and  in  Veronese. 
The  piece  of  Spanish  leather  behind  the  figures 
is  worthy  of  note  because  it  is  mentioned  in 
an  inventory  of  Vermeer’s  effects,  made  after 
his  death,  and  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  many 
points  by  which  this  picture  is  identified  as  a 
Vermeer. 

The  aforesaid  scrap-basket,  by  the  way,  is  a re- 
markable piece  of  painting:  made  with  perfect 

288 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


ease  out  of  soft  flowing  pigment,  the  aspect  ren- 
dered supremely  well  and  yet  with  distinct  econ- 
omy of  effort. 


STREET  IN  DELFT 

Six  Collection,  Amsterdam 

The  facade  of  a three-storied  brick  house.  At 
the  open  door  of  the  house  sits  a woman  sew- 
ing. There  are  two  children  playing  in  front 
of  the  house.  Through  a doorway  looking  into 
a court-yard  is  seen  the  figure  of  a woman  at 
a wash-tub.  Another  closed  doorway  is  seen  to 
the  left  of  this,  and  by  its  side  appears  a 
smaller  house  covered  for  the  most  part  with  ivy. 
The  lower  parts  of  all  the  windows,  save  one  of 
the  larger  house,  are  closed  by  shutters.  The 
windows  to  be  seen  are  small  and  leaded.  The 
outline  of  the  house,  of  irregular  design,  shows 
two  chimneys.  The  sky  is  grey  with  cumulus 
clouds.  The  street  in  front  is  paved  with  square 
cobblestones. 

Canvas,  21  inches  by  17  inches. 

Apparently  the  House  in  Delft  sold  for  72 
florins  ($28.80)  in  1696.  It  belonged  to  the  Collec- 
tion of  M.  G.  VV.  Oosten  de  Bruyn.  In  the  Van 

289 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Winter  Collection,  Amsterdam.  Now  in  the  Col- 
lection of  J.  Six,  Amsterdam. 

This  picture  seems  to  have  been  painted  at 
about  the  same  time  as  the  View  of  Delft  and  the 
Milk-woman , if  one  may  judge  by  its  technique 
or  manner  of  painting.  It  is,  however,  smoother 
in  surface  than  the  Milk-woman , which  is  one  of 
the  most  “loaded”  of  Vermeer’s  canvases.  There 
are  many  things  in  it  which  remind  one  of  De 
Hooch,  but  the  signature  on  the  left-hand  wall, 
I.  v.  Meer,  seems  to  settle  the  question  of  au- 
thorship. It  does  not  seem  likely  that  the  sig- 
nature was  forged,  since,  till  very  lately,  the  name 
of  De  Hooch  was  a better  asset  than  that  of 
Vermeer. 

Apart  from  the  merits  of  the  painting,  there  is 
something  very  delightful  about  this  old  Dutch 
house  with  its  mixture  of  neatness  and  squalor. 
One  notes,  for  instance,  how  the  whitewash  or 
stucco  goes  up  beyond  the  door  just  as  the  care- 
less workmen  happened  to  plaster  it  on.  The 
leaded  panes  are  delightful,  and  one  observes  with 
interest  how  our  artist  has  managed  to  render 
literally  every  brick  in  the  building  without  any 
apparent  loss  of  effectiveness  in  his  picture. 


290 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


The  fact  is,  that  when  a design  is  strongly  con- 
ceived and  mapped  out  in  broad  oppositions  of 
light  and  dark,  no  amount  of  detail  will  injure 
its  effectiveness. 

The  little  figures  in  this  composition  suggest  De 
Hooch  more  than  Vermeer.  They  are  well  enough 
done  not  to  spoil  the  effect  of  the  picture,  but  they 
seem  hardly  so  neat  in  jacture  as  are  most  of 
Vermeer’s  figures. 

VIEW  OF  DELFT  FROM  THE  ROTTERDAM  CANAL 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 

The  town  of  Delft  is  to  be  seen  across  the  canal. 
Most  noticeable  is  the  Nieuwe  Kerk,  of  handsome 
Gothic  design.  A mass  of  trees,  very  pointille  in 
style,  is  to  be  seen  in  front  of  the  church,  and 
before  the  trees  appears  a small  bridge  with  an 
arch.  In  front  and  to  the  right  of  the  church 
is  seen  an  old  house  which  joins  on  to  the  old 
city  wall.  Further  to  the  right  two  towers  rise 
from  the  wall  above  the  Rotterdam  Gate,  and 
in  front  of  this  is  a large  canal-boat.  To  the  left 
of  the  bridge  appears  a large  building  which  has 
a cupola  or  “gazebo,”  under  which  may  be  seen 
the  Schiedam  Gate.  Still  further  to  the  left  are 

291 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


the  roofs  of  many  houses  whose  walls  are  for 
the  most  part  hidden  by  a high  wall.  In  front  of 
these,  along  the  dyke,  lie  various  canal-boats. 

In  the  immediate  foreground,  on  the  bank,  are 
seen,  rather  to  the  left,  two  marketwomen  talking 
together.  At  the  extreme  left  stands  a group  of 
two  men,  a woman  and  another  woman  who  holds 
a child  in  her  arms.  The  sky  is  filled  with  large 
cumulus  clouds  with  spaces  of  very  blue  sky 
between. 

Signed  on  the  boat  to  the  left,  “J.  v.  M”  (the 
letters  intertwined). 

Canvas,  39  inches  by  46)^  inches. 

Sales:  Amsterdam,  1696. 

S.  J.  Stinstra,  Amsterdam,  1822. 

The  tones  are  painted  quite  frankly  as  they 
appeared  — blue  is  blue;  green,  green;  even  red, 
red  — for  Vermeer,  unlike  many  moderns,  had  no 
particular  parti-pris  about  the  matter  of  out- 
door colour.  He  simply,  as  well  as  he  might, 
painted  the  thing  before  him  as  it  appeared, 
with  no  preoccupation  about  how  Rembrandt  or 
Ruysdael  might  have  done  it.  One  gets  a distinct 
feeling,  in  looking  at  Ruysdael’s  or  at  Hobbema’s 
pictures,  that  they  were  made  from  very  carefully 

292 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


studied  pencil  drawings.  In  regard  to  this  picture 
one’s  feeling  is  quite  different.  It  is  impossible 
to  conceive  of  it  as  having  been  done  otherwise 
than  directly  before  nature.  And  if  this  be  so, 
apparently  Vermeer  was  almost  the  only  Dutch- 
man who  painted  outdoors  in  that  manner.  For 
we  find  in  a poetaster  artist’s  rhymed  instruc- 
tions to  young  artists  the  advice  to  go  out  and 
look  at  nature  — make  sketches  — but  to  paint  the 
picture  in  the  studio. 

One  gets  a feeling,  in  studying  this  picture,  that 
it  may  have  been  a piece  de  resistance  that  Ver- 
meer took  out  every  now  and  then  and  painted 
away  at.  It  looks  as  if  it  might  have  been  worked 
at  for  years  and  years.  Unfortunately,  one  can- 
not make  out  all  the  detail  in  a photogravure, 
but  if  one  studies  in  the  original  the  spire  of  the 
church,  let  us  say,  the  Nieuwe  Kerk,  one  per- 
ceives in  that  little  bit  material  for  days  and 
days  of  work.  Biirger-Thore  speaks  of  the  largeness 
of  the  picture’s  facture;  and  it  is  perfectly  true 
that  the  general  effect  is  simple  and  impressive, 
but  the  thing  is  made  in  the  utmost  detail.  Ver- 
meer has  managed  to  make  us  focus  at  the  church 
and  the  trees  in  front;  that  is  the  place  to  which 
one’s  eye  wanders  most  frequently.  One  gets  the 

293 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

feeling  that  the  foreground  with  its  little  figures 
is  not  so  well  or  so  carefully  made.  This  was 
very  possibly  intentional  in  order  to  make  one 
focus  on  the  middle  distance.  It  is  interesting 
in  this  connection  to  compare  the  picture  with 
Velasquez’  little  View  of  Saragossa , where  the 
figures  are  so  astonishingly  well  made  that  one 
takes  a quite  secondary  interest  in  the  town  be- 
yond. It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  the  men 
who  were  perhaps  the  two  greatest  objective 
painters  the  world  has  known,  should  have  chosen 
so  nearly  the  same  sort  of  subject  for  a landscape 
exercise  — a subject,  moreover,  quite  removed  from 
the  ordinary  landscape  motive. 

The  background  in  this  View  of  Delft  is  quite  mod- 
ern looking  with  its  sky  of  a frank  blue  and  grey- 
white  clouds.  It  seems  as  if  a Dutch  painter  had 
for  once  taken  his  yellow  glasses  off  and  painted 
Nature  just  as  she  looked.  The  general  tone  of 
the  houses  is  red  — naturally  enough,  since  they  are 
for  the  most  part  of  brick  — but  the  trees  are 
not  only  green,  but  in  some  part  of  a bluish  tinge, 
quite  different  from  the  black  affairs  which  Ruys- 
dael  and  Hobbema  were  painting  at  a time  not  far 
removed. 

In  fact,  the  great  interest  of  this  picture,  apart 

294 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


from  its  intrinsic  merit,  is  that  it  is  the  first 
landscape  made  in  the  modern  spirit.  Though  in- 
finitely more  studied  in  detail,  it  is  still  got  at  in 
much  the  same  feeling  that  the  modern  landscapist 
shows  in  his  approach  to  nature. 

M.  Gustave  Vanzype  describes  another  View 
of  Delft , owned  by  M.  Michel  Van  Gelder  of 
Uccle,  a town  near  Brussels;  and  he  also  publishes 
a half-tone  print  of  the  same.  He  thinks  that 
this  picture  may  also  be  by  Vermeer.  It  has  al- 
most the  same  aspect  as  the  Hague  example,  ex- 
cept it  is  smaller  and  is  not  so  wide,  leaving  out 
certain  of  the  houses  on  the  left. 

Biirger-Thore  mentions  a copy  of  the  View  of 
Delft  made  by  a Dutch  painter  at  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  is  possible  that  the 
Van  Gelder  example  may  be  the  same  picture.  It 
is  also  known  that  a number  of  other  copies  have 
been  made  of  this  picture.  There  also  exists  a 
so-called  Study  for  the  picture  at  the  Stadel  In- 
stitute, Frankfort-on-the-Main. 

This  shows  that  plenty  of  copies  are  in  existence. 
The  Van  Gelder  picture,  if  a copy,  is  quite 
slavishly  performed,  except  that  the  sky  is  dis- 
tinctly different.  There  are  also  slight  changes  in 
the  composition.  These  are,  however,  changes 

295 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

which  would  have  been  easy  to  make,  and  we 
know  it  was  not  uncommon  with  ancient  copyists 
to  take  liberties  with  the  pictures  they  copied. 
But  what  rather  staggers  one’s  theory  that  this 
may  be  a copy  is  that  the  sky  is  quite  different, 
particularly  in  the  shape  and  arrangement  of  the 
clouds.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  a mere  copyist 
could  have  ordered  the  thing  so  skilfully. 

At  the  same  time  it  would  seem  absurd  that 
Vermeer  should  have  made  so  elaborate  a study  for 
a thing  which,  after  all,  is  in  itself  a study. 

The  View  of  Delft  looks  like  a canvas  that  Ver- 
meer may  have  painted  at  possibly  for  several  years, 
to  amuse  himself.  Why,  then,  make  an  elaborate 
preparatory  study  for  that  sort  of  thing? 

M.  Vanzype  himself  admits  that  the  trees  are  of 
a less  bluish  ( bleute ) green  in  the  Van  Gelder 
example;  also  that  the  Hague  picture  has  a more 
marked  patina  of  age.  These  things  lead  one  to 
doubt  the  former’s  authenticity. 

PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  GIRL 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 

A young  girl  looks  over  her  left  shoulder  at  the 
spectator.  She  wears  a curious  turban  of  blue  on 

296 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  GIRL 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


know  it  w.  ■ not  unco  concoct  with  ancient  coexists 

But  what  rather  stag.:  ers  one's  theory  thac  this 
may  be  a copy  is-  ti  a'  the  sky  is  quite  different, 


::  pc  and  arrangement  of  the 
• fo  see  how  a mere  copyist 

thing  so  skilfully. 

At  the  same  tin 

•»  it  would  seem  absurd  that 

i uu  so  elaborate  a study  for 

THJHtl  HO  VI At 

C.  v:.- 

.1HID  OV1UOY  A dO  TIAHTHOI 
auoA H anT  .YsajjAO  bsutoiM  .iayo# 

■ . 

1.  Vaiizypc  h «.  * if  admits- that  the  trees  are  of 
I green  in  t r Van  Clelder 
also  »t  ie  Hague  picture  has  a more 


OF  A YOUNG  Giat 

VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


her  head  with  a sort  of  scarf  of  blue  and  yel- 
lowish-white hanging  over  the  shoulder.  There  is 
a large  pearl  pendant  at  the  ear.  The  dress  is  of 
yel  lowis  h-green . 

Signed  in  the  left-hand  upper  corner,  “J.  V. 
Meer”  (the  J,  V,  and  M intertwined). 

The  canvas  is  18)^  inches  by  16  inches. 

Probably  the  Portrait  in  Antique  Costume  of  the 
1696  Amsterdam  Sale,  where  it  went  for  36  florins 
($14.40).  Two  other  portraits  of  somewhat  the 
same  nature  are  mentioned.  One  is  in  the  Aren- 
berg  Gallery,  while  the  other  has  disappeared. 
The  one  of  which  we  are  speaking  was  in  the  Des 
Tombes  Sale.  It  was  bequeathed  to  the  Hague 
Museum. 

Something  has  been  said  in  a previous  chapter 
of  Vermeer’s  mastery  of  light  and  shade;  and 
there  is  no  better  instance  of  this  mastery  than  this 
head  of  a Young  Girl  in  the  Hague  Gallery. 

There  is  no  other  head  that  one  thinks  of  that  is 
rendered  more  purely  and  simply  by  just  light  and 
shade  than  is  this.  No  painter  ever  made  anything 
more  by  simple  light  and  shade  than  are  the  eye,  the 
nose,  and  the  mouth  of  this  head.  There  is  no- 
where any  effort  to  paint  the  thing  in  the  direction 

297 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

of  the  forms.  Rather  the  objects  appear  to  the 
eye  without  parti-pris  or  prejudice;  it  is  simply 
lighter  here,  darker  there,  just  as  the  light  or  the 
shadow  made  it.  Surely  no  mouth  was  ever  more 
beautifully  rendered  than  is  this.  The  thing  is 
made  with  the  most  absolute  simplicity  and  yet 
with  the  greatest  subtlety.  There  is  no  painting 
along  the  forms  of  the  mouth,  nor  is  there  an 
effort  of  rendering  the  texture,  the  minute  cracks 
in  the  lip,  etc.  Simply,  the  thing  is  made  light 
where  it  came  light,  dark  where  it  was  dark. 
And  there  is  no  handling  visible  — one  cannot  in 
any  way  see  how  the  colour  was  floated  on.  The 
form  is  simply  there,  perfectly  rendered  — the 
means  of  its  making  quite  concealed. 

The  same  things  might  be  said  of  the  nose. 
We  are  all  aware  of  the  nose  of,  commerce  — 
the  sort  that  shows  in  fashionable  portraits  with 
its  button-hole  nostrils,  its  over-accented  planes, 
and  its  sweaty,  greasy  high  light.  Here  it  is  made 
purely  by  the  light  and  shade  — one  cannot  see 
the  further  outline.  It  simply  merges  into  the 
light  of  the  cheek  as  it  w'ould  appear  in  nature. 
On  the  dark  side  the  form  is  rendered  by  the 
subtlest  gradations  of  half  lights.  At  the  same 
time  there  is  a perfect  understanding  of  where 

298 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


the  darkest  half-light  stops  and  the  no-light  or 
shadow  begins. 

We  can  say  all  these  things,  too,  for  the  eye. 
One  notes  at  once  that  this  eye  is  rendered,  not 
in  the  button-hole  style  but  purely  by  light  and 
shade.  In  the  eye  there  is  a complex  difficulty  of 
rendering  the  forms  about  the  iris  by  light  and 
shade  and  of  rendering  the  iris  itself  by  colour 
values.  In  a previous  chapter  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  one  of  the  modern  notes  is  the  way  of 
rendering  eyes,  and  this  is  a triumphant  example 
of  the  matter.  Here  the  whole  thing  — the  shape 
of  the  upper  lid,  its  turn-under  toward  the  eye, 
the  white  of  the  eye,  the  upper  edge  of  the 
lower  lid,  its  turn-under  as  it  runs  into  the  form 
of  the  cheek  — is  made  by  pure  light  and  shade. 

It  is  not  only  in  the  features,  but  in  the  way 
that  the  light  and  shade  are  made  on  the  cheek, 
that  this  head  is  most  significant.  One  notes  a 
strong  reflected  light  on  the  lower  part  of  the 
cheek,  which  carries  almost  the  same  value  with 
the  light  itself.  Yet  here,  as  everywhere  else,  there 
is  not  the  slightest  faltering  — just  the  place 
where  the  last  ray  of  direct  light  stops  and  the 
beginning  of  the  shadows,  however  enfiltrated  by 
reflected  light,  is  definitely  ascertained  and  fixed. 

299 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


One  does  not  care  quite  so  much  for  the  light  and 
shade  on  the  quaint  kerchief  which  the  girl  wears 
on  her  head.  One  feels  paint  in  the  rendering  — 
the  brush  strokes  are  too  obvious.  One  does  not 
feel  that  the  light  and  shade  are  studied  in  the 
same  wonderful  way  that  distinguishes  the  face. 
Doubtless  this  rougher,  more  petulant  handling 
was  intended  to  give  relief  to  the  face;  but  one 
has  the  feeling  that  these  violent  dabs  keep  the 
picture  from  being  a perfect  whole. 

In  colour  this  picture  is  very  characteristic  of 
Vermeer.  The  famous  Vermeer  yellow  is  here, 
and  the  equally  famous  blue.  The  tonality  is 
very  cool,  quite  unlike  the  ordinary  hot  colour 
that  was  being  made  elsewhere  in  Holland. 

Note  in  parting  the  marvellously  painted  ear 
pendant. 


THE  TOILET  OF  DIANA 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 

Rather  to  the  right  of  the  picture,  in  profile,  sits 
the  goddess  Diana,  looking  downward  on  a kneel- 
ing nymph  who  bathes  her  feet  in  a small  brass 
dish  with  a cloth.  Diana  is  dressed  in  a robe  of 
brown.  The  maid-servant  wears  a purple  skirt 

300 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


and  a brown  bodice.  By  Diana’s  side,  more  to 
the  right  of  the  picture,  sits  another  nymph  facing 
in  the  same  direction,  who  nurses  her  tired  foot 
with  her  right  hand.  She  is  dressed  in  a red  jacket 
and  a blue  skirt. 

Rather  behind  her  and  still  more  to  the  right 
stands  the  figure  of  a young  girl  who  watches  the 
proceedings  with  interest.  Behind  Diana,  to  the 
left  of  the  canvas,  is  seen  the  back  of  a nymph  — 
partly  nude,  partly  covered  with  burnt  orange 
drapery;  while  behind  the  whole  group  a grove 
of  trees  is  seen.  In  the  foreground,  to  the  extreme 
left,  a black  and  white  spaniel  watches  the  sight 
with  sapient  interest.  Streaks  of  blue  show  through 
the  yellow  draperies. 

Canvas,  39  inches  by  42  inches. 

Toward  the  left  a doubtful  signature,  well-nigh 
effaced,  may  be  seen.  The  picture  was  bought  for 
4725  florins  ($1890)  at  the  Goldschmidt  Sale, 
Paris.  It  was  at  first  attributed  to  Nicholas 
Maes,  afterwards  to  Vermeer  of  Utrecht;  later 
considered  to  be  by  Vermeer  of  Delft. 

Vanzype  thinks  this  a very  wonderful  picture, 
and  doubtless,  when  one  considers  how  much 
better  it  is  than  most  pictures  of  the  same  type 

301 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


done  by  Dutchmen,  it  is  quite  remarkable.  But 
when  one  looks  at  it  on  its  own  merits  and  merely 
tries  to  think  whether  it  is  a fine  picture  or  no, 
it  does  not  hold  its  own  as  well  as  many  of  our 
Vermeers  do.  Vermeer’s  forte  was  an  exquisite 
realism;  his  feet  were  planted  firmly  on  the  tes- 
sellated floors  he  loved  so  well,  and  he  must  have 
felt  ill  at  ease  in  striving  to  paint  a picture  under 
unreal  conditions.  There  was  the  background  to 
be  invented,  and  invention  of  that  sort  was  not 
in  Vermeer’s  line. 

The  painting  of  the  nymph’s  back  is  a fine  piece 
of  work,  no  doubt,  especially  when  compared  to 
much  of  the  contemporary  work. 

What  saves  this  picture  is  the  masterly  way  in 
wThich  this  back  of  the  standing  figure  is  painted. 
The  picture  hardly  reminds  one  of  Vermeer  in  its 
colouration.  The  shadows  are  browmish  — and 
the  draperies  are  orange  and  pink  rather  than  of 
the  blue  and  lemon-yellow  tones  that  Vermeer  later 
affected.  It  looks  as  if  he  might  have  been 
imitating  certain  Italian  painters.  The  colour 
notes  somehow  suggest  Veronese.  Not  that  they 
are  so  good  as  Veronese’s  colour,  but  they  look 
as  if  some  one  was  trying  to  imitate  his  way  of 
arranging  a colour  composition.  If  Leonard 

302 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Bramer  really  were  Vermeer’s  teacher,  he  may 
have  inspired  this  spirit  of  Italianism,  which  ap- 
pears in  this  picture  and  so  far  as  one  knows  — 
with  Vermeer  — never  again.  Most  of  the  picture 
does  not  suggest  Vermeer  at  all.  The  trees,  for 
instance,  are  not  in  the  least  in  the  manner  of 
the  trees  in  the  View  of  Delft.  They  are  evidently 
invented  or  “faked,”  and  it  must  be  admitted  that 
our  Vermeer  was  a very  poor  faker.  This  may, 
after  all,  be  more  praise  than  blame.  The  things 
that  look  most  like  the  Vermeer  whom  we  know 
are  the  hands  and  feet  in  various  parts  and  the 
dog  in  the  corner.  This  dog  and  the  spindling 
plant  nearby  also  look  more  like  the  work  of 
Fabritius  than  many  of  Vermeer’s  things.  In 
spite  of  many  fine  things  about  the  picture  I 
should  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that  it  was  not 
by  Vermeer  at  all. 

Whoever  made  the  picture  — were  he  Vermeer 
or  some  one  else  — had  an  excellent  working  idea 
of  light  and  shade.  All  the  heads  are  rendered 
with  a thorough  understanding  of  just  where  the 
light  ends  and  where  the  shadow  begins.  This 
may  seem  a simple  enough  affair,  but  one  con- 
stantly sees  men  and  women  painting  who  have 
no  real  idea  whether  the  spot  they  are  painting  is 

303 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


half  light  or  shadow.  In  this  picture  these  mat- 
ters are  thoroughly  understood.  And  certainly  this 
understanding  of  light  and  shade  is  one  of  the 
most  characteristic  things  about  Vermeer.  It  is 
one  of  the  qualities  which  lead  to  a right  under- 
standing of  his  work. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Royal  Picture  Gallery,  The  Hague 

A woman  sits  a little  to  the  right  of  the  middle 
part  of  the  canvas.  Her  body  faces  the  spectator, 
while  her  head  is  turned  in  three  quarters  with 
the  eyes  gazing  upwards.  Her  left  arm  leans  on 
the  table  to  her  left,  while  her  right  hand  lightly 
touches  her  breast.  The  right  foot  is  placed  on  a 
large  globe.  She  is  dressed  in  a bluish  bodice 
with  a white  satin  skirt.  On  the  table  are  an  open 
Bible,  a crucifix  and  a chalice.  The  table  is 
covered  with  blue  silk.  Behind  the  woman  is  a 
large  picture  of  the  crucifixion,  while  behind  the 
crucifix  appears  a piece  of  stamped  Spanish 
leather.  A curtain  or  portiere  of  Gobelins  tapes- 
try covers  the  left  end  of  the  picture,  while  a 
chair,  on  which  is  a blue  cushion,  stands  over 
against  it. 


3°4 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


On  the  floor,  which  is  made  in  blue  and  white 
squares,  lies  a snake,  its  head  crushed  and  bleed- 
ing beneath  a heavy  weight  of  veined  marble. 
Nearby  lies  the  apple  of  Paradise.  Above  the 
woman,  somewhat  to  her  right,  hangs  a large 
crystal  or  glass  ball. 

Canvas,  45  inches  by  35  inches.  It  was  sold  in 
Amsterdam,  1699,  for  400  florins  ($160);  same 
place,  1718,  for  500  florins  ($200);  in  1735,  53 
florins  ($21.20);  in  1749,  together  with  an  Eglon 
Van  der  Neer,  for  70  florins  ($28).  Rediscovered 
in  Berlin  by  Dr.  Bredius.  Said  to  have  been  sold 
to  him  as  an  Eglon  Van  der  Neer. 

In  the  possession  of  Dr.  A.  Bredius,  The  Hague. 

Exhibited  on  loan  at  the  Royal  Picture  Gallery. 

When  Vermeer  painted  a young  girl  standing 
by  a window,  he  was  wonderful.  When  he  tried 
a quasi-allegorical  picture,  he  was  hardly  so  won- 
derful. In  certain  ways  this  picture  seems  the 
least  good  that  Vermeer  has  made.  Yet  there  are 
beautiful  passages  in  it.  Technically,  it  is  among 
the  most  accomplished  of  Vermeer’s  work.  The 
weak  point  in  it  is  the  figure  of  the  woman. 
The  mere  fact  that  it  was  supposed  to  mean  some- 

305 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


thing  seems  to  have  paralysed  Vermeer’s  energies. 
It  is  not  only  that  the  figure  is  stupidly  posed 
and  of  a ridiculous  expression;  it  is  ill  done  into 
the  bargain. 

Here,  as  so  often  with  bits  that  could  not  be  got 
to  keep  still,  Vermeer  has  had  trouble  with  the 
drapery.  It  seems  as  if  he  had  tried  to  invent  it, 
and  evidently  invention  in  allegorical  painting  was 
not  Vermeer’s  forte.  The  invention  of  the  globe 
as  a footstool  is  as  puerile  a thing  as  one  has 
seen  in  art,  though  it  should  be  noted  at  the 
same  time  that  it  is  very  well  painted. 

All  the  accessories,  on  the  other  hand,  are  ex- 
tremely well  done.  There  is  a crucifix  near  the 
woman’s  figure  that  is  a marvel  of  skill  and 
finish.  The  picture  of  the  crucifixion  itself, 
which  hangs  directly  behind  the  woman’s  figure, 
is  done  with  consummate  art  in  that  it  keeps  back 
well  and  yet  allows  us  to  make  out  the  detail 
in  large  measure.  This,  by  the  way,  is  characteris- 
tic of  all  Vermeer’s  paintings  of  pictures  on  the  wall. 
They  invariably  take  their  place  well,  and  yet  one 
often  makes  out  a considerable  amount  of  detail. 

The  curtain  to  the  left  is  extremely  well  made, 
and  it  is  this  — the  manner  of  its  making  and  its 
placement  — that  leads  us  to  believe  that  the 

306 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


picture  must  have  been  painted  at  a time  not  far 
distant  from  that  of  the  Studio.  In  fact,  the 
device  of  composition  is  very  much  the  same  in 
the  two  pictures:  there  is  the  curtain;  a chair, 
in  both  pictures  placed  in  almost  identically  the 
same  sense  to  the  picture;  there  are  just  the  same 
rafters  on  the  ceiling  and  the  same  expedient  of 
a hanging  object  to  break  the  straight  lines  of 
rafters  and  picture;  and  the  picture  is  placed  in 
about  the  same  sense  as  the  map  and  for  almost 
the  same  purpose. 

Indeed,  this  picture  is  extremely  interesting  as 
showing  so  sharply  on  one  canvas  Vermeer’s  as- 
tounding merits  and  some  of  his  amiable  little 
weaknesses.  There  are  things  in  it  painted  as  no 
one  but  he  ever  painted;  and  then  there  is  this 
ridiculous  female  in  whom  all  of  Dutch  awkward- 
ness is  summed  up. 

Rembrandt  sometimes  succeeded  with  this  kind 
of  thing  because  his  pictures  had  a vagueness,  a 
“golden  glow”  which  made  them  look  as  if  in  faery 
lands  forlorn.  But  for  Vermeer,  with  his  vision 
and  technique,  perfectly  normal  save  for  its  ultra- 
refinement, a thing  had  to  be  good  or  else  it  was 
bad.  It  was  all  or  nothing.  It  was  but  one  step 
for  him  from  the  sublime  to  the  ridiculous. 


307 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Germany 

THE  PEARL  NECKLACE 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 

A young  lady,  standing  in  profile  quite  at  the 
right  of  the  canvas,  looks  into  a small  mirror  on 
the  wall  at  the  extreme  left.  Her  hands  toy 
with  a pearl  necklace.  She  wears  a yellow  dress- 
ing jacket  trimmed  with  ermine;  her  skirt  is  of 
greenish-grey;  a knot  of  red  ribbon  adorns  her 
hair,  and  a large  pendant  drips  from  her  ear.  A 
table  stands  somewhat  in  front  of  her  to  the  left 
of  the  canvas,  and  on  this  table  is  a large  blue 
Japanese  vase,  a tumbled  mass  of  blue  drapery,  a 
small  bowl  of  nondescript  colour,  and  a round 
brush.  Behind  the  table  stands  a chair  covered 
with  tapestry  of  greenish  hue,  modified  by  de- 
signs in  dull  yellow  and  blue.  Another  chair, 
apparently  of  brown  Spanish  leather,  with  brass 
bossed  nails,  stands  in  the  immediate  foreground 
at  the  extreme  right  of  the  canvas.  The  light 
comes  through  a leaded  casement  quite  at  the 
left  of  the  picture;  beyond  the  window  is  a cur- 
tain of  Vermeer  yellow;  the  wall  is  of  a whitish- 
grey. 


308 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Signed  on  the  table,  “J.  Meer  ” (the  J and  M 
intertwined). 

Canvas,  22  inches  by  18  inches. 

Probably  this  is  Lady  Adorning  Herself  of 
the  1696  Sale,  which  sold  for  30  florins  ($12). 
Was  in  a sale  at  Amsterdam  in  1791.  It  has,  at 
different  times,  belonged  to  the  Grevedon  Collec- 
tion, to  Biirger-Thore,  and  later  to  the  Suer- 
mondt  Collection. 

This  is  one  of  the  very  few  almost  perfect  pic- 
tures in  the  world  of  which  the  art  is  almost  con- 
cealed. The  picture  does  not  appear  to  be  painted 
at  all.  It  seems  to  have  just  happened.  There 
are  marvellous  bits  of  rendering  — for  instance, 
the  jug  at  the  extreme  left  against  the  window  — 
but  one  is  not  conscious  of  the  handling.  The 
high  lights  on  this  vase  make  one  think  of  one 
of  Alfred  Stevens’  sayings  — that  a high  light  on 
a jug  as  made  by  a Dutch  master  was  more  than 
a clever  touch  — it  was  a conscious  act  of  intellect. 

What  none  of  the  photographs  show,  or  at  least 
what  they  do  not  show  enough,  is  the  way  in 
which  the  light  slides  across  the  surface  of  the  w'all. 
The  figure  is  really  a little  more  lost  in  a sort  of 
penumbra  — one  feels  its  distance  from  the  win- 

309 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

dow.  The  lights  and  darks  in  this  figure  do  not 
come  out  so  sharply  as  in  the  photographs. 

Vermeer  in  this  picture  came  nearer  to  making 
what  the  simple-minded  man  in  the  street  would 
call  a pretty  face  than  in  anything  else  he  has 
done.  The  woman’s  head  is  of  the  marked  Dutch 
type,  which  has  been  already  pointed  out  as  char- 
acteristic of  Vermeer  as  well  as  of  Terburg.  Yet 
here  the  type  is  delicately  modified:  the  nose  is 
not  so  retrousse;  the  chin  is  not  so  retreating  as 
with  some  of  Vermeer’s  women;  the  arm,  though 
hardly  drawn  constructively,  is  well  seen  and 
makes  an  agreeable  form;  the  large  pearl  ear 
pendant,  which  so  often  appears  in  Vermeer,  is 
wonderfully  painted  as  usual;  and  the  red  ribbon 
in  the  hair,  made  with  peculiarly  Vermeerish  tech- 
nique, gives  an  agreeable  colour  accent. 


A GIRL  DRINKING  WITH  A GENTLEMAN 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 

A young  woman  sits  in  profile  toward  the  right 
of  the  canvas  facing  to  the  left.  She  drinks  from 
a wine  glass  held  in  her  right  hand;  her  left  lies 
in  her  lap.  She  wears  a red  dress  and  a white 
cap.  A gentleman  stands  somewhat  behind,  re- 

310 


GIRL  DRINKING  WITH  A GENTLEMAN 
Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  Berlin 


VERMEER'S  PICTURES 


garding  her;  in  his  right  hand  he  holds  that  white 
jug  which  often  appears  in  Vermeer’s  pictures. 
He  is  dressed  in  grey  with  a black  hat.  The  table 
is  covered  with  an  Oriental  rug  of  various  colours. 
Upon  it  are  certain  books  and  nearby  it,  in 
front,  is  placed  a chair  with  lions’  heads.  In  this 
chair  are  a cushion  and  a guitar. 

The  stained-glass  window,  as  usual,  is  on  the 
extreme  left  of  the  composition.  It  has  appar- 
ently the  same  design  as  occurs  in  the  Beit  Col- 
lection Love-Letter  and  the  Brunswick  Coquette. 
Beneath  the  window  is  a bench,  and  on  the  bench 
is  a cushion.  Behind  the  man’s  figure  and  to  the 
left  is  a landscape  in  a frame  of  intricate  fancy. 

Canvas,  263^  inches  by  30 Y2  inches. 

In  the  Van  Loon  Sale,  Delft,  July  18,  1736. 
In  the  Collection  of  Lord  Frances  Hope.  The 
collection  was  purchased  as  a whole  by  P.  and  D. 
Colnaghi  and  A.  Wertheimer. 

This  picture  might  be  described  as  an  inter- 
mediate Vermeer;  that  is,  it  is  not  so  fine  as 
the  dozen  or  so  of  really  great  ones,  while  it  is 
much  better  than  some  and  is,  indeed,  a fine 
picture.  If  there  were  nothing  else  by  Vermeer, 
we  might  well  think  it  a great  picture. 

3ii 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


It  is  evidently  enough  by  him,  although  there 
are  places  where  he  falters.  We  have  the  lions’ 
heads;  the  little  white  vase  of  so  distinctive  a 
shape  which  often  appears  in  his  compositions; 
and  the  leaded  window  of  a special  design.  Then 
there  is  the  rug  or  the  table  and  the  tessellated 
flooring,  which  appears  often  enough  with  other 
artists  but  almost  always  with  Vermeer. 

There  is  a certain  interest  in  the  face  of  the 
man  because  it  is  of  the  bilious,  saturnine  type, 
with  perhaps  a touch  of  Spanish,  which  is  common 
enough  in  Holland,  but  which  we  of  other  lands 
do  not  associate  with  her.  This  man  with  his 
rather  melancholy,  raffine  expression  might  have 
been  the  Sebastian  Van  Storck  of  Pater’s  “Imag- 
inary Portrait,”  just  as  the  stolid  girl  might  have 
been  the  hapless  Mademoiselle  van  Westrheene. 

To  come  back  to  matters  technical,  it  is  worthy 
of  note  that  the  drapery  on  the  man’s  figure  is 
not  particularly  good.  Vermeer  experienced  here 
his  usual  difficulty  in  rendering  forms  that  would 
not  keep  perfectly  still.  The  woman’s  kerchief  is 
not  so  good  as  that  of  the  Woman  at  the  Casement 
in  the  Metropolitan  Museum.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  matchless  things  in  the  picture  which  no 
one  but  Vermeer  could  possibly  do:  the  farther 

312 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


casement,  with  the  light  coming  through  the  cur- 
tain, is  wonderful  in  its  expression  of  light  and 
shade;  the  lions’  heads,  as  always,  are  master- 
pieces; the  head  of  the  mandolin  and  the  rug  on 
the  table  are  done  supremely  well,  in  a way  that 
no  one  else  has  arrived  at.  It  may  be  said  that 
these  smaller  felicities  are  unimportant.  But  it  is 
the  sum  total  of  all  these  perfections  that  gives 
that  air  of  quiet  serenity  and  stillness  which  is 
Vermeer’s  chiefest  charm. 


THE  GIRL  WITH  THE  WINE  GLASS  (or  The  Coquette) 

Picture  Gallery,  Brunswick 

A young  girl  who  sits  in  profile  to  the  right  of 
the  canvas  turns  her  smiling  face  toward  the  spec- 
tator. Her  left  hand  lies  in  her  lap,  while  her 
right  holds  a glass  of  wine,  which  a low-bending 
beau,  lightly  touching  her  hand,  has  just  pre- 
sented her.  At  a table,  toward  the  left  and  be- 
hind, sits  a gloomy  gallant  who  leans  his  head 
upon  his  hand.  The  girl  is  clad  in  a rose-coloured 
bodice.  The  short  sleeves  of  yellow  shot  with 
gold  have  lace  about  the  elbows.  Her  skirt  is 
also  of  rose-coloured  satin.  The  bending  beau 
sports  a mouse-coloured  cloak  edged  with  gold 

3i3 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


lace;  his  long  hair  flows  to  his  shoulders  over  a 
fine  white  collar,  and  his  wrists  are  adorned  with 
flowing  laces. 

The  man  in  the  corner  is  clad  in  the  military 
fashion  with  greyish-green  sleeves  shot  with  gold. 
On  the  table  is  a silver  salver  with  lemons,  the 
peel  of  one  tumbling  to  the  table.  The  little 
white  jug,  which  often  appears  in  Vermeer’s  pic- 
tures, is  here;  and  a large  white  napkin  falls  over 
the  blue  table  cover. 

The  half-opened  casement  of  stained  glass, 
which  represents  a little  woman,  apparently  a ma- 
donna, holding  a snake,  admits  a discreet  light  to 
the  room.  The  wall,  of  Vermeer  grey,  is  adorned 
with  a big  portrait,  which  represents  a man  in 
black  with  large  white  collar  and  cuffs,  holding  a 
Rembrandt  hat  in  his  right  hand.  The  floor  is 
tiled  in  blue  and  white. 

The  picture  is  signed  just  below  the  window. 
“J.  Meer”  (the  J and  M intertwined). 

Canvas,  31  inches  by  27  inches. 

Possibly  the  Interior  with  Revellers  of  the  1696 
Sale.  Catalogued  by  Eberlein  so  late  as  1859, 
“Jacob  Vandermeer.”  It  comes  from  the  old  Sal- 
thal  Collection,  made  by  the  Dukes  of  Brunswick. 

3i4 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

This  picture  can  hardly  be  ranked  among  the 
very  best  ones,  though  it  has  some  admirable 
passages.  Naturally  the  girl’s  head  is  the  focussing 
point;  unfortunately  this  is  by  no  means  the  finest 
bit  of  painting  in  the  picture.  The  mouth  is  insen- 
sitively done,  and  the  edge  of  shadow  of  the  nose 
is  poorly  studied.  The  gallant’s  head,  nearby,  is 
one  of  the  most  dismal  things  that  our  Vermeer 
ever  perpetrated.  On  the  other  hand,  the  girl’s 
hand  in  her  lap  is  beautifully  seen  and  rendered, 
as  it  shows  against  the  white  napkin.  Whenever 
Vermeer  could  get  a thing  to  lie  still,  as  this 
hand  must  have  lain,  he  could  see  it  more  beau- 
tifully and  render  it  more  absolutely  than  any 
other  man  has  been  able  to  do.  So  one  sees  the  girl’s 
satin  dress  is  handsomely  made:  it  must  have 

been  arranged  on  a lay  figure.  The  still  life,  as 
always  with  Vermeer,  is  masterly  in  its  treatment. 
So  is  the  picture  on  the  wall  and  the  back  of  the 
chair,  though  one  might  think  the  chair  is  poorly 
placed  as  a matter  of  composition.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  raised  hands,  which  must  have  been 
harder  to  keep  still,  are  not  so  well  rendered.  The 
hand  of  the  gloomy  gallant  who  sits  at  the  table 
is  indeed  singularly  bad.  He  seems  to  be  saying 
with  old  George  Wither: 

3i5 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

“ Will  had  her  to  the  wine 
He  might  intreat  her.” 

Fine  morceaux  in  the  picture  are  the  bit  of 
shirt  on  the  seated  man’s  arm,  the  lace  chemise 
about  the  girl’s  wrist,  and  the  girl’s  sleeve,  which 
is  all  of  shot  gold  wonderfully  rendered. 

An  interesting  thing  about  this  picture  is  that 
it  is  built  up  on  a rose-coloured  note  of  colour, 
whereas  most  of  Vermeer’s  paintings  are  notes  in 
blue  and  yellow. 


STUDY  HEAD 

Berlin  Museum 

A boy’s  head  in  full  face,  the  light  coming  from 
the  left.  He  wears  a broad  black  felt  hat  and  a 
broad  white  collar. 

Painted  in  oils  on  paper. 

This  is  the  head  described  in  Dr.  H.  de  Groot’s 
Catalogue,  under  46  b. 

It  is  rather  hard  to  see  how  anyone  could  ever 
have  supposed  this  head  to  be  by  Vermeer.  There 
is  neither  the  square-touch  handling  nor  yet  the 
small  pointille  touch  which  we  have  come  to  asso- 
ciate with  Vermeer.  The  high  lights  on  the  lips 
are  not  at  all  in  his  manner.  (Compare  with 

316 


'an  Vermeer  of  Delft.  (Authenticity  contested) 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Head  of  Girl,  Hague  Museum.)  The  light  and 
shade  are  not  understood.  Note  the  forehead, 
where  the  edge  of  the  shadow  is  ill  studied,  the 
penumbra  being  of  the  same  value  as  the 
shadow.  This  is  a fault  which  Vermeer  never 
committed.  The  reflected  lights  are  exaggerated 
and  their  edges  made  too  sharp  against  the  dark 
hat. 

The  picture  seems  quite  obviously  not  by 
Vermeer. 


A LADY  AND  A MAID-SERVANT 

Collection  of  James  Simon,  Berlin 

A young  lady,  at  the  right  of  the  composition, 
sits  at  a table;  one  hand,  resting  on  this  table, 
holds  a pen.  The  other  touches  her  chin  as 
though  she  were  perplexed. 

Her  head,  turned  in  “lost  profile,”  looks  toward  a 
smiling  maid-servant  who  hands  her  a letter.  The 
young  lady  is  dressed  in  a lemon-yellow  morning 
sacque  trimmed  with  white  ermine.  She  has 
pearls  in  her  hair,  pearls  about  her  neck,  and  a 
large  pendant  at  the  ear.  The  maid  is  dressed 
in  a dull  grey  bodice  and  skirt.  On  the  table, 
which  is  covered  by  a somewhat  rumpled  blue 

3i7 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

cloth,  are  a glass  inkstand,  a drinking  glass,  and 
a casket.  The  background  is  of  a sympathetic 
darkness. 

Signed  on  the  wall. 

Canvas,  35  inches  by  30  inches. 

This  is  possibly  No.  7 of  the  1696  Sale,  though 
that  may  be  the  Letter  of  Amsterdam.  It  belonged 
to  Lebrun;  to  the  Paillet  Collection,  Paris;  to  the 
Duchesse  de  Berry;  to  the  Dufour  Collection, 
Marseilles;  to  the  Secretan  Collection;  to  A. 
Paulovtsoff,  St.  Petersburg. 

It  sold  in  1809  in  Paris  for  600  francs  ($120) 
at  the  Lebrun  Sale;  in  1818  it  was  sold  at  the  Pail- 
let Sale;  in  1837  at  the  Duchesse  de  Berry’s  sale  it 
sold  for  405  francs  ($81). 

A curious  thing  about  this  picture  is  that  the 
background  forms  no  part  of  the  composition.  It 
is  the  only  conversation-piece  by  Vermeer  where 
the  lines  and  space  on  the  walls  do  not  continue 
and  improve  the  design.  This  is  only  one  of 
various  things  which  lead  one  to  wonder  if  the 
picture  may  possibly  be  by  another  man.  It  has 
none  or  few  of  the  well-known  Vermeer  ear- 
marks: the  table  covering  is  quite  different  from 

3i8 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


that  in  most  of  Vermeer’s  works;  the  woman’s 
morning  sacque  is  of  a different  pattern  from  any- 
thing which  appears  in  his  pictures;  the  hair  is 
dressed  in  a different  way. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  picture  is  signed,  and 
while  with  many  men  this  would  not  prove  much, 
in  Vermeer’s  case  it  has  not  been  worth  while 
till  recently  to  forge  signatures,  and  this  signature 
has  no  look  of  being  new. 

Also  the  painting  is  so  admirable  in  many  ways 
that  one  finds  it  hard  to  think  of  anyone  else 
who  might  have  done  it. 

THE  PROCURESS  (or  The  Courtesan) 
Museum  of  Dresden 

A drab,  of  rosy  hue,  sits  to  the  right  of  the 
canvas  at  a table,  her  face  in  three  quarters  as 
to  the  spectator.  Her  left  hand  holds  a hock 
glass,  while  her  right  is  extended  to  catch  a piece 
of  gold  which  a youth  who  stands  behind  her 
proffers.  Her  bodice  is  of  canary-yellow,  and  she 
wears  a white  cap  or  kerchief  edged  with  rude 
lace.  The  youth  behind  her  wears  a red  tunic 
ornamented  with  a gold  stripe.  His  hat,  adorned 
with  a peacock’s  feather,  is  of  grey  felt,  which 

3i9 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


shades  his  face  and  flowing  locks.  His  left  hand 
is  on  the  girl’s  breast,  his  right  hand  proffers 
money.  Somewhat  behind  him  a crone,  quite 
cloaked  in  black,  regards  him  from  the  corner  of 
her  eyes. 

At  the  extreme  right  of  the  canvas  sits  a gal- 
lant, turning  to  the  left,  who  regards  the  spectator 
over  his  shoulder.  He  holds  a glass  of  wine  in  his 
right  hand  and  in  his  left  a lute.  He  is  dressed 
in  a black  pourpoint  slashed  with  white,  and  has 
a large  white  collar  with  fantastic  edging.  A 
big  cap  or  beret  shades  his  face  and  his  fluffy  chest- 
nut hair.  The  background,  for  the  most  part  in 
grey,  turns  toward  yellow  behind  the  man  with 
the  wine  glass. 

Covering  the  table  and  depending  from  it  is  a 
large  Turkish  rug  of  red  and  yellow  pattern  against 
a grey-green  ground.  It  is  partly  covered  by  a 
great  fur  cloak  at  the  left.  On  the  table  beside 
the  green  hock  glass  is  a blue  and  white  wine  jug. 

Signed,  in  the  right-hand  corner,  “ J.  v.  Meer  ” 
(the  J and  M intertwined)  and  dated  1656. 

Canvas,  57  inches  by  52  inches. 

Brought  to  Dresden  in  1741  from  the  Wallen- 
stein Collection  at  Dux.  Catalogued  as  by  J. 

320 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Vermeer  since  1905.  Now  in  the  Picture  Gal- 
lery, Dresden. 

The  Procuress  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been 
one  of  the  earliest  of  Vermeer’s  paintings.  It  has 
its  historic  interest  on  that  account.  It  is  painted 
with  a heavy  and  unrelenting  hand,  and  is  not 
so  highly  finished  or  of  so  pleasant  a surface  as 
are  some  of  his  later  works.  Apart  from  the  fact 
that  the  subject  is  not  a very  appetising  one,  the 
composition  has  not  all  the  beauty  of  some  of  his 
other  works.  It  does  not  look  as  if  Vermeer  had 
thought  much  about  the  subject,  as  do  some  of 
his  later  works.  The  figures  appear  to  be  just 
jumbled  together,  although  there  is  a composi- 
tion of  no  mean  order  which  is  not,  however,  very 
obvious.  Apart  from  the  matter  of  composition, 
however,  the  whole  picture  is  less  sensitive  than 
are  some  others  of  our  master’s.  There  are  aston- 
ishing bits  of  still  life  in  it.  The  goblet,  for  in- 
stance, is  a marvel  of  painting. 

When  one  comes  to  examine  it  carefully,  one 
perceives  certain  things  in  the  execution  that  show 
plainly  enough  that  it  was  painted  by  a man  who 
did  not  as  yet  have  his  metier  at  his  fingers’  ends. 
It  is  painted  rather  unevenly;  that  is,  certain 

321 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

parts  seem  to  have  gone  well,  whereas  other 
bits  are  loaded  quite  heavily,  as  if  our  painter  had 
painted  and  repainted  on  that  part.  The  girl’s 
yellow  jacket  is  an  instance  of  this.  The  paint 
is  “ gobbed  ” on,  as  artists  say,  very  heavily.  On 
the  other  hand,  a bit  nearby,  the  hock  glass  which 
she  holds  in  her  hand  is  painted  with  all  the  skill 
which  Vermeer  shows  in  his  later  work.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  note  that  in  this,  as  in  almost  all  of 
Vermeer’s  work,  he  had  difficulties  with  the  parts 
that  moved  now  and  then,  whereas  in  the  parts  that 
kept  still,  like  the  rug  or  the  table,  he  is  masterly 
even  at  this  early  date. 

The  heads  are  all  good  in  their  varying  way. 
The  girl’s  head  is  well  painted,  quite  characteristic 
as  it  is  of  the  unthinking  Dutch  type  of  fille  de 
joie.  The  old  woman  with  her  sharp,  uncanny 
face  makes  one  think  of  some  of  Degas’  dreadful 
old  women.  The  head  of  the  gallant,  with  a glass, 
is  well  made  — and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  this 
is  one  of  the  few  instances  where  Vermeer  has 
made  a head  so  much  in  shadow  — while  the  boor 
who  leans  over  the  girl  is  well  painted  except  for 
his  left  hand,  which  lies  on  the  woman’s  dress. 
This  is  singularly  ill  done,  compared  to  some  of 
the  masterly  bits  about  it. 

322 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


The  whole  thing  impresses  one  as  an  early 
work  on  which  the  artist  has  laboured  earnestly, 
until  he  got  it,  in  a measure,  done.  Evidently  he 
learned  some  things  in  the  making.  For!  instance, 
this  is  one  of  the  two  known  instances  of  Ver- 
meer where  the  figures  are  life  size.  Apparently 
Vermeer  satisfied  himself  that  life-size  figures  were 
not  in  his  province  and  did  not  attempt  them  again. 
Fie  evidently  learned  gradually  not  to  load  his 
canvases  as  he  does  in  this  case;  Dr.  Valentiner 
speaks,  in  the  Hudson-Fulton  Catalogue  of  the 
“glassy”  surface  of  some  of  his  later  pictures. 

The  composition  of  this  picture  is  interesting 
for  two  reasons:  first,  that  it  is  quite  different 
from  any  of  Vermeer’s  other  work,  and  again  that 
in  spite  of  that  it  is  still  an  admirable  piece  of 
space  filling  — the  device  of  the  rug  filling  the 
lower  half  of  the  composition  is  a bold  one  and  yet 
so  successful  that  the  uninitiate  does  not  notice 
it  until  his  attention  is  called  to  it.  The  pattern 
of  the  figures  against  the  background  is  an  in- 
teresting one;  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  one’s 
eyes  focus  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  picture, 
yet  so  cleverly  is  this  managed  that  one  does  not 
at  first  notice  anything  unusual. 

The  colour  of  this  picture  is  so  terrible  as  to  be- 

323 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

come  very  good.  If  one  heard  of  such  an  arrange- 
ment, one  would  off  hand  condemn  it,  and  yet  in 
actual  fact  it  proves  agreeable  and  original. 

A GIRL  READING  A LETTER 

Dresden  Gallery 

A young  girl  in  a greenish-yellow  bodice  stands 
in  profile  facing  a window  at  the  left.  She  is 
looking  down  at  a letter  which  she  holds  in  both 
her  hands.  Her  hair  is  dressed  rather  intricately 
with  a love-lock  falling  to  the  shoulder.  In  front 
of  her  is  a table,  covered  with  a partly  crumpled 
Oriental  rug  of  red,  yellow,  and  blue.  A dish,  tip- 
ping to  the  right,  holds  fruits,  some  of  which  have 
rolled  on  the  table. 

The  window  has  a casement  of  leaded  glass  in 
which  is  reflected,  rather  too  large,  the  young  girl’s 
head.  A piece  of  cloth,  hanging  from  the  wall  on 
the  right,  is  draped  about  the  top  of  the  casement. 
The  lion’s-head  chair  stands  in  a corner  below. 
In  the  extreme  foreground,  filling  more  than  a 
fourth  of  the  picture,  hangs  a portiere  of  bronze- 
green  silk. 

There  is  a trace  of  the  signature,  “ Meer,”  in  the 
background. 


324 


9 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


A GIRL  READING  A LETTER 
Picture  Gallery,  Dresden 


N VERMEER  OF  DELFP 

< .y  good.  If.  oi  s heard  of  such,  an  urraog©- 
■i  one  v <n  Id  cdf  hand  condemn  it,  anti  yet  in 
stual  tact  it  proves  agreeable  and  original 

A GJKL  reading  a letter 

T3J3CI  30  R331/.R3Y  V!Al 
H3TTHJ  A OVridAHH  JHIO  A 

v:3a23flCJ  ,y*3JJaO  hhutoiT 

v<  tit  of  the  picture,  gang's  a portiere  of  roaze- 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Canvas,  33  inches  by  25^  inches. 

First  attributed  to  Rembrandt.  Sold  at  Paris 
in  1742.  Catalogued  till  1862  as  a Pieter  de 
Hooch.  Authenticated  by  Waagen  in  1858. 

This  would  seem  to  be  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
and  original  of  Vermeer’s  compositions.  In  general 
arrangement  it  is  not  unlike  several  of  his;  the 
Pearl  Necklace  in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum, 
for  instance,  or  the  Reader  of  the  Rijks  Museum. 
What  makes  it  unique  is  the  amount  of  wall  space 
above  the  figure’s  head.  This  is  a device  which  has 
been  used  a good  deal  in  modern  interior  painting, 
and,  so  far  as  one  remembers,  it  originates  with 
Vermeer,  though  Velasquez  uses  a somewhat  similar 
arrangement  in  some  of  his  portraits. 

There  are  many  charming  passages  in  this  pic- 
ture. Vermeer  has  been  so  interested  in  the  figure 
that  in  the  treatment  of  the  head  and  hands  he 
has  broken  through  his  rather  blocky  square-touch 
manner  and  rendered  them  with  more  intensity 
and  sympathy  than  in  most  of  his  works.  The 
girl’s  head,  with  its  slightly  aquiline  nose,  is 
rather  more  raffine  than  are  some  of  his  types; 
while  the  curious  dressing  of  the  hair  reminds  one 
of  certain  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci’s  types. 

325 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


The  hands,  again,  though  hardly  absolutely  suc- 
cessful, are  at  least  treated  with  an  intensity  that 
Vermeer  does  not  always  arrive  at.  There  is  an 
effort  at  making  the  delicate  modulation  over  the 
small  bones  of  the  carpus  that  is  worthy  of 
note. 

The  device  of  the  head  reflected  in  the  glass 
casement  is  a charming  and  original  one,  which 
one  does  not  recall  having  seen  elsewhere.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  our  artist  has  made  the 
head  somewhat  distorted  as  it  would  appear  re- 
flected in  two  or  three  different  panes.  For  in- 
stance, the  forehead  at  the  left  in  the  reflection 
does  not  seem  about  to  meet  the  top  of  the  head 
and  the  outline  of  the  cheek  does  not  appear  to 
fit  with  the  chin. 

Vermeer  has  overcome  his  difficulties  in  the 
drapery  on  the  left  and  has  rendered  some  parts 
of  it  with  great  beauty.  He  has  been  able  to  make 
it  with  great  detail  as  it  kept  still  for  him,  and 
the  play  of  light  and  shade  on  this  portiere  is 
beautifully  rendered.  On  the  other  hand,  the  cur- 
tain draped  over  the  window  seems  rather  foolish. 
It  may  be  that  Vermeer  could  not  have  it  still 
enough  and  had  to  hurry  in  his  rendering.  One 
always  feels  with  his  pictures  that  he  was  a slow 

326 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


worker  who  needed  to  paint  a thing  over  and  over 
again  to  get  its  fullest  expression. 

The  colour  of  this  picture  is  hardly  so  beauti- 
ful as  is  some  of  Vermeer’s.  It  is  rather  low  in 
tone,  which  may  explain  why  it  was  at  various 
times  attributed  to  Rembrandt  and  to  Govaert 
Flink.  It  has  not  la  peinture  blonde  which  is  so 
characteristic  of  much  of  Vermeer’s  work. 


THE  ASTRONOMER  (sometimes  called  The  Geographer) 

Stadel’sches  Institute,  Frankfort 

A young  man,  rather  to  the  left  of  the  picture 
and  facing  in  three  quarters  toward  the  left,  leans 
over  a table.  His  right  hand  lies  on  a book, 
while  his  left  holds  a pair  of  compasses.  He 
wears  a bluish  gown  with  orange  lining,  and  his 
long  curls  fall  to  his  shoulders.  He  is  busied  with 
a white  map  of  the  stars  which  lies  on  the  table 
before  him.  A large  part  of  the  table  is  covered 
with  a crumpled  Turkish  rug.  The  light,  which 
falls  on  his  right  shoulder,  comes  from  a window 
to  the  extreme  left  of  the  canvas.  This  window  is 
leaded  in  quaint  design,  and  is  partly  obscured 
by  a large  curtain.  Directly  behind  the  astron- 
omer is  a wooden  cabinet  on  which  may  be  seen  a 

327 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


globe  and  certain  books.  Somewhat  to  the  right  of 
this,  a framed  map  hangs  on  the  wall.  Immedi- 
ately below  this  map  is  a chair,  upholstered  in 
tapestry.  In  the  extreme  foreground,  to  the 
right,  may  be  seen  a square  stool,  while  certain 
papers  lie  on  the  floor  behind  it. 

Signed,  on  the  upper  right  panel  of  the  cup- 
board door,  “J.  Meer”  (with  the  J and  M joined). 
In  the  right-hand  upper  corner  of  the  wall  are  an- 
other signature  and  date  which  are  not  genuine. 

Canvas,  21  inches  by  i8J^  inches. 

M.  Vanzype  suggests  that  this  is  one  of  two 
“pendants”  in  the  1696  Sale  with  the  Astronomer 
belonging  to  the  Rothschild  Collection.  Both  are 
painted  on  canvas,  while  The  Geographer  of  the  du 
Bus  de  Gisignies  Collection  is  painted  on  a panel. 
Moreover,  this  latter  has  many  peculiarities  which 
seem  to  show  it  is  not  by  Vermeer. 

It  was  sold  at  Amsterdam,  179 7,  at  the  Danser- 
Nyman  Sale,  for  132  florins  ($53).  It  belonged  to 
the  Goll  von  Franckenstein  Collection;  to  the 
Dumont  Collection;  the  Pereire  Collection,  Paris, 
and  to  the  Bosch  Collection  of  Vienna.  Bought 
for  the  Frankfort  Museum  in  1885. 

328 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

THE  ASTRONOMER 


Stadel’sches  Kunstinstitut,  Frankfort-on-Main 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


The  head  in  this  picture  has  many  excellent 
qualities.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  outline  of  this 
head  against  the  dresser  is  very  good.  It  is  the 
sort  of  thing  of  which  Vermeer  would  never  have 
been  guilty  at  the  time  at  which  he  painted  the 
Czernin  Studio.  At  the  same  time  the  way  in 
which  the  shadows  of  the  man’s  face  are  studied 
is  quite  remarkable.  All  through  the  picture  one 
notices  good  bits,  and  yet  it  does  not  seem  to  be 
painted  with  that  perfection  of  technique  which 
we  have  come  to  associate  with  Vermeer.  For  this 
reason  one  is  inclined  to  place  it  among  his  rather 
early  ones,  not  far  from  the  time  of  painting  the 
Milk-woman.  The  “edges”  are  harder  and  less 
well  understood  than  in  the  finest  examples  of 
our  artist.  It  is  interesting  to  compare  the 
technique  of  the  window  in  the  upper  left-hand 
corner  with  the  same  corner  in  the  Cup  of  Wine 
in  the  Berlin  Collection.  There  is  no  comparison 
between  the  two,  and  yet  the  Cup  of  Wine  is 
by  no  means  among  our  hero’s  best  works. 

It  is  instructive  to  note  the  pointille  workman- 
ship in  the  rug.  That  apparently  is  a mark  of 
Vermeer’s  early  or  rather  early  period,  although 
it  is  worthy  of  note  that  it  does  not  appear  at  all 
in  his  earliest  known  work,  the  Courtesan.  He 

329 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

seems  to  have  used  this  dot  stroke  in  emergencies 
all  through  his  life,  but  it  appears  most  often  in 
rather  early  work,  like  the  Milk-woman.  On  the 
other  hand,  one  sees  nothing  of  that  square-touch 
technique  which  has  been  before  mentioned  — 
that  apparently  was  a development  of  a later 
day. 

France 

THE  LACE-MAKER 

Museum  of  the  Louvre,  Paris 

A young  girl,  her  head  in  three  quarters,  leans 
forward  making  lace  on  a blue  pillow  and  frame. 
To  her  right,  at  the  left  of  the  picture,  may  be 
seen  a blue  pillow  box  from  which  straggle  silk 
strands  of  white  and  of  red.  A book  lies  nearby. 
The  table  is  covered  with  tapestry  of  the  same 
pattern  as  appears  in  several  of  Vermeer’s  pictures. 
The  girl’s  hair  is  dressed  in  antique  guise,  love- 
locks flowing  confusedly  therefrom.  She  wears  a 
yellow  bodice  with  a white  lace  collar;  the  wall  or 
background  is  of  Vermeer  grey. 

Signed  in  the  upper  right-hand  corner,  “J.  v. 
Meer”  (the  letters  J v M being  intertwined). 

Canvas,  9^  inches  by  8 inches. 

330 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


This  is  the  Girl  Making  Lace  of  the  1696  Sale. 
In  1813,  at  the  Muilman  Sale,  Amsterdam,  it  sold 
for  84  francs  ($16.80);  in  1817,  at  the  Lapey- 
riere  Sale,  for  501  francs  ($100),  and  at  the  Nagel 
Sale,  1851,  for  265  florins  ($106).  Bought  for  the 
Louvre,  1870,  of  M.  Blockhuyzen  of  Rotterdam, 
for  1270  francs  ($254). 

This  little  picture  has  long  been  the  delight  of 
earnest  art  students  in  Paris.  Twenty-five  years 
ago,  when  Vermeer  was  very  little  talked  of,  this 
picture  was  well  known  to  the  more  intelligent 
students.  In  certain  ways  it  suited  the  ideas  of 
that  time.  It  marked  square-touch  technique  and 
its  cool  coloration  made  it  more  sympathetic 
to  students  than  were  many  of  the  hot  Dutch 
pictures. 

It  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  of  Vermeer’s 
works,  even  though  it  is  quite  different  in  size  and 
composition  from  most  of  his  paintings.  While 
the  arrangement  is  satisfactory,  there  is  not  so 
much  preoccupation  with  design  as  in  many  of  his 
pictures. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  square-touch  technique, 
the  treatment  of  edges,  and  the  peculiar  colour 
scheme  are  particularly  characteristic  of  the  master. 

33i 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot  describes  the  dark  blue 
cushion  as  having  white  and  red  feathers  protrud- 
ing from  it.  To  the  present  writer  it  seems  that 
these  white  and  red  forms  are  strands  of  silk  issuing 
from  the  pillow  box. 


THE  ASTRONOMER 

Collection  of  the  late  Baron  Alphonse  de 
Rothschild,  Paris 

A man,  seated  at  the  right  of  the  canvas,  faces 
toward  the  left.  He  leans  forward  and  touches 
with  his  right  hand  a celestial  globe  which  stands 
near  the  window  to  the  left.  Before  him  lies  an 
open  book.  He  is  dressed  in  a blue  gown  and 
has  long  flowing  hair.  He  sits  in  a bluish  chair, 
and  his  left  hand  holds  the  corner  of  the  table. 
This  table  is  covered  with  a crumpled  mass  of 
blue-green  tapestry,  figured  in  yellow;  the  grey 
wall  behind  him  is  partly  obscured  by  a cabinet 
on  which  hangs  a chair.  There  are  certain  books 
on  the  top  of  this  cabinet;  to  the  right  of  it 
hangs  a picture,  The  Finding  of  Moses , in  a black 
frame. 

v. 

Canvas,  20  inches  by  18  inches. 


332 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Was  in  the  Danser-Nyman  Sale,  Amsterdam,  in 
1797,  where  it  sold  for  270  florins  ($108);  at  the 
Gildemeester  Sale  in  1800,  340  florins  ($136).  It 
was  in  the  Lebrun  Gallery. 


Belgium 

PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  GIRL 

Arenberg  Gallery,  Brussels 

Portrait  head  and  bust. 

A young  girl,  the  head  in  three  quarters,  looks 
over  her  left  shoulder  at  the  spectator.  A yellow- 
ish drapery  falls  back  of  the  head;  the  body  is 
enveloped  in  a white  shawl. 

Signed  at  the  left  upper  corner,  “ J.  MEER  ” 
(the  J and  M intertwined). 

No.  39  in  the  1696  Sale,  Amsterdam. 

Somewhat  the  same  pose  and  arrangement  as 
the  Head  of  a Young  Girl  of  the  Hague  Gallery. 
It  seems  possible  that  the  two  pictures  may  be 
portraits  of  two  of  Vermeer’s  daughters.  It  is 
thought  that  this  picture  may  be  that  sold  to  Dr. 
Luchtmans  of  Rotterdam,  in  1816,  for  3 florins 
($1.20). 


333 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


This  Arenberg  head,  however,  is  not  equal  to 
the  young  girl’s  head  at  the  Hague.  The  modelling 
seems  to  lack  the  firmness  of  the  latter,  and  the 
paint  quality  is  not  so  attractive.  While  the  light 
and  shade  are  well  enough,  they  are  hardly  so  re- 
markable as  in  that  other. 

Some  enthusiasts  have  compared  this  head  with 
the  Mona  Lisa  of  Da  Vinci,  but  while  it  has  excel- 
lent traits  it  is  hardly  of  the  same  quality.  It  is 
true,  however,  that  both  this  and  the  Hague 
head  are  painted  with  a subtlety  of  modelling 
quite  beyond  anything  else  done  in  Holland,  so 
that  an  intensity  of  expression,  almost  mystical, 
is  achieved. 


THE  ASTRONOMER 

Collection  of  the  Vicomte  du  Bus  de  Gisignies, 
Brussels 

A young  man,  in  profile,  sits  in  the  left-hand 
part  of  the  picture  facing  to  the  right.  In  his 
right  hand  he  holds  an  open  book:  his  left  hand  is 
extended  to  touch  a celestial  globe  on  the  table 
nearby.  Against  the  globe  is  leaned  a larger  open 
book.  On  the  table,  covered,  as  it  is,  by  a Turk- 
ish rug,  are  to  be  seen  a compass  and  other  things. 

334 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft.  ( Authenticity  contested) 

THE  ASTRONOMER 

Collection'  of  the  Vicomte  du  Bus  de  Gisignies,  Brussels 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


The  man,  who  wears  a loose  cap,  is  dressed  in  a 
gown  of  grey  faced  with  leopard  skin.  The  back- 
ground of  the  room  behind  is  largely  obscured  by 
a green  curtain.  From  the  ceiling  hangs  a quadrant. 

Panel,  19  inches  by  14^  inches. 

Evidently  not  by  Vermeer. 

Sales:  Isaac  Pereire,  Paris,  1872;  Kums,  Ant- 
werp, 1898. 

One’s  reasons  for  doubting  this  to  be  by  Ver- 
meer run  somewhat  as  follows: 

1.  The  picture  is  poor  in  light  and  shade,  or 
chiaroscuro , which  has  always  been  one  of  Ver- 
meer’s distinguishing  merits. 

One  has  only  to  look  at  the  cap  to  perceive  this. 
One  finds  it  difficult  to  see  just  where  the  light 
stops  and  where  the  shadow  or  “no-light”  begins. 
One  has  nothing  of  this  difficulty  in  the  pictures 
best  known  to  be  by  Vermeer,  not  even  in  the 
other  two  Astronomers.  The  light  and  shade  of  the 
book  and  other  accessories  are  particularly  poor. 

2.  The  handling  lacks  the  distinctive  touch  of 
Vermeer,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  has  certain  de- 
fects which  never  appear  in  his  work.  One  sees 
nothing  of  the  square-touch  manner,  by  which,  as 

335 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

we  have  seen,  Vermeer  often  laid  in  his  pictures: 
nor  do  we  see  any  trace  of  the  pointille  touch 
which  he  so  often  used  in  finishing,  especially  in 
draperies  such  as  curtains.  In  this  curtain  there 
is  no  trace  of  this. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a trivial,  scratchy 
quality  of  touch  in  this  which  one  would  say 
never  obtains  in  Vermeer’s  work.  One  notes  this 
particularly  in  the  way  the  hair  is  painted.  The 
touch  is  in  little  streaks  — made  en  longue  — with 
no  sense  of  the  way  in  which  the  light  would  drift 
across  the  mass  of  the  hair.  One  has  only  to 
compare  this  with  the  Rothschild  Astronomer  to 
note  the  difference  of  handling. 

3.  The  way  in  which  the  “edges”  are  managed. 
For  instance,  in  the  upper  hand  one  notes  the 
shadow  and  reflected  light  made  en  longue , with 
the  edges  nearly  as  sharp  as  the  edge  of  the  light 
against  the  background.  The  edge  of  the  face  in 
shadow  appears  too  sharp  against  the  background. 

4.  The  composition.  In  the  first  place  the  figure 
is  turned  in  the  opposite  sense  from  all  of  Ver- 
meer’s subjects.  It  looks  from  left  to  right  in- 
stead of  from  right  to  left;  and,  moreover,  the 
light  comes  on  the  back  of  the  head  instead  of  on 
the  face,  as  one  notes  in  Vermeer’s  other  sub- 

336 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


jects.  These  facts,  insignificant  enough  in  them- 
selves, are  worth  considering  in  connection  with 
the  other  suggestions. 

The  composition  is  not  made  after  what  may 
be  called  the  Vermeer  receipt,  which  calls 
for  uprights  and  horizontals  in  the  background, 
against  which  the  pattern  of  the  figure  is  con- 
trasted. Here  a curtain,  running  diagonally,  fills 
up  a large  part  of  the  background  instead  of 
serving  as  a foil  to  the  background,  as  it  does 
in  all  of  Vermeer’s  other  pictures,  where  a cur- 
tain is  introduced. 

The  quadrant,  instead  of  cutting  the  line  of  the 
curtain,  as  one  would  expect  in  one  of  Vermeer’s 
pictures,  comes  just  to  the  edge. 


PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  MAN 

Museum  of  Brussels 

A young  man,  seated,  his  right  hand  resting 
on  the  back  of  his  chair,  looks  in  full  face  toward 
the  spectator.  He  is  dressed  in  black  with  a plain 
white  collar,  a small  ornament  apparently  of  gold 
depending  from  it.  He  wears  a large  high-crown 
hat  of  black.  The  chair  is  ornamented  with  lions’ 
heads. 


337 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

This  portrait  is  thought  by  M.  A.  J.  Wauters 
to  be  by  Vermeer.  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Bre- 
dius  of  the  Hague  Museum  does  not  think  it  is 
by  the  master  of  Delft. 

Perhaps  the  strongest  argument  which  Mr. 
Wauters  brings  to  bear  on  the  matter  is  that  the 
chair  in  which  the  man  sits  has  those  lions’  heads 
which  adorned  certain  chairs  in  Vermeer’s  studio 
and  which  he  was  so  fond  of  painting.  This  seems 
a rather  weak  argument,  because,  as  Mr.  Wauters 
himself  admits,  these  chairs  appear  in  the  pictures 
of  various  other  Dutch  painters.  He  says  they 
do  not  so  appear  in  the  works  of  Pieter  de  Hooch 
and  Nicholas  Maes,  who  had  certain  points  of  re- 
semblance to  Vermeer.  But,  as  a matter  of  fact, 
one  may  see  these  self-same  lions’  heads  chairs  in 
a picture  by  De  Hooch  in  the  Wallace  Collection. 

However,  it  does  not  seem  at  all  likely  that 
De  Hooch  painted  this  portrait,  as  he  was  quite 
incapable  of  painting  such  a head.  One  thinks 
for  a moment  of  Nicholas  Maes,  who  certainly  had 
the  technical  ability.  But  the  Committee  of  the 
Museum  of  the  Hague,  after  comparing  this  por- 
trait with  one  by  Maes  in  the  National  Gallery 
of  London,  decided  quite  definitely  that  the  pic- 
ture was  not  by  Maes. 

338 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


One  really  comes,  then,  by  a process  of  elimina- 
tion as  it  were,  to  wonder  whether  the  picture  is 
not  by  Vermeer.  Certain  things  beside  the  lions’ 
heads  lead  us  to  think  this  may  be  so.  There  are 
certain  points  of  resemblance  between  its  facture 
and  that  of  the  Letter  of  Dresden,  of  the  Cup  of 
Wine  in  Berlin,  and  of  the  Portrait  of  a Woman 
of  Buda-Pesth.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  one 
remembers,  Vermeer  never  “lost”  an  edge  as  the 
edge  of  the  hat  in  this  picture  is  lost  in  the  back- 
ground. Also  the  hand  is  not  painted  at  all  as 
the  hand  of,  let  us  say,  the  Lace-Maker  is  made. 

But  the  thing  which  on  the  whole  convinces  us 
that  the  picture  is  by  Vermeer  is  its  colour.  No 
one  else,  one  would  guess,  ever  got  just  that  note 
of  colour.  One  cannot,  unfortunately,  describe 
colour  in  writing,  but  this  colour  is  just  the  cool, 
distinguished  note  so  characteristic  of  Vermeer. 

Austria 

PORTRAIT  OF  A WOMAN 

Museum  of  Buda-Pesth 

A woman  stands  almost  in  full  face.  Her  hands 
are  folded.  She  wears  a little  cap  and  a large 
white  collar  decorated  with  a knot  of  yellow  silk. 

339 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Her  dress  is  dark  blue.  She  has  large  white  cuffs, 
and  on  her  right  hand  a glove  decked  out  with 
yellow  ribbons  in  intricate  detail.  In  her  left 
hand  she  holds  the  other  glove,  while  her  right 
holds  a small  fan.  At  her  left,  behind  her,  shows 
a table  cover,  reddish  in  hue,  worked  out  in  some 
detail.  The  form  of  a chair  shows  vaguely  at 
her  right. 

Canvas,  32^  inches  by  26  inches. 

Formerly  in  the  Esterhazy  Collection,  Vienna. 

This  portrait  was  at  one  time  attributed  to 
Rembrandt.  His  reputation  and  prestige  were  so 
enormous  that  they  naturally  engulfed  any  Dutch 
portrait  of  unknown  authorship  which  happened  to 
be  remarkably  good.  It  was  just  as  Whistler  has 
appropriated  all  the  mots  of  his  time.  When  one 
comes  to  look  the  portrait  over,  one  perceives  at 
once  that  whoever  made  it  was  not  Rembrandt. 
The  facture,  the  manner  of  attack,  and  the  colour 
are  quite  different. 

What  leads  one  to  think  it  by  Vermeer  is  the 
colour  arrangement,  the  colour  quality,  and  the 
facture.  The  little  bows  are  of  the  yellow  that 
Vermeer  loved,  and  they  are  brushed  in  in  just  the 

340 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


square-touch  crisp  manner  that  he  affected.  The 
colour  quality  or  tonality  of  the  whole  thing  is 
more  like  Vermeer  than  like  anyone  else  whom  we 
can  think  of. 

And  characteristic  of  Vermeer  is  the  startling 
impression  of  life  which  the  portrait  gives  at  first 
sight. 


A PAINTER’S  STUDIO 

Czernin  Gallery,  Vienna 

A painter  seated,  his  back  to  the  spectator  some- 
what to  the  right  foreground  of  the  canvas,  is  at 
work  on  a canvas  on  which  his  subject  is  sketched 
in  chalk. 

He  wears  a curious  doublet  with  black  strips  of 
cloth  over  white;  about  his  waist  is  a sort  of 
sash.  He  wears  very  loose  knickerbockers  and 
red  hose,  over  which  appear  curious  stockings  with 
low  shoes.  On  his  head  is  a velvet  beret.  His 
right  hand  holding  a brush  leans  against  a mahl- 
stick.  He  is  painting  a bit  of  the  model’s  wreath 
in  a bluish  tone. 

The  model,  apparently  intended  for  a figure  of 
Renown,  stands  in  profile  in  the  middle  of  the 
picture  facing  to  the  left  — her  head  slightly  turn- 

341 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


ing,  in  three  quarters,  toward  the  artist.  In  her 
left  hand  she  holds  a trumpet,  in  her  right  a book. 
She  is  dressed  in  a bluish  sort  of  gaberdine  with  a 
light-coloured  skirt.  Behind  her  is  a big  map  of 
the  Seven  Provinces,  covering  a large  part  of  the 
wall. 

To  the  extreme  right  of  the  picture  in  the  imme- 
diate foreground  is  a large  Gobelins  tapestry  which 
fills  quite  a fourth  of  the  picture.  Close  to  it, 
also  in  the  foreground,  is  a chair  with  brass  bosses. 
Behind  this  is  a table  littered  up  with  various  ob- 
jects— an  open  book,  another  book  standing  on 
end,  a work-basket,  certain  draperies,  and,  curiously 
enough,  a cast  from  the  Brutus  of  Michael  Angelo. 
From  the  timbered  ceiling  hangs  a brass  chandelier; 
the  floor  is  of  light  and  dark  squares. 

Signed  “J.  Ver-Meer.” 

Canvas,  52  inches  by  44  inches. 

Long  attributed  to  De  Hooch.  Authenticated 
by  Biirger-Thore  in  1865. 

After  Vermeer’s  death  the  picture  was  in  pos- 
session of  his  widow,  Catherina  Bolnes,  who  gave 
it  to  her  mother  as  security  for  a loan. 


342 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this 
painting  is  the  supreme  technical  achievement  of 
the  world.  One  is  not  particularly  interested  in 
the  composition,  which,  indeed,  is  almost  absurd 
in  some  respects.  The  girl’s  figure  is  merely  a 
model  stuck  up  in  a silly  position.  But  it  is  the 
one  picture  of  Vermeer’s,  or  of  anyone  else, 
which  has  almost  no  discernible  flaw  in  technique. 
The  man’s  hand  and  possibly  the  hand  of  the  girl 
which  holds  the  trumpet  are  the  only  bits  where 
one  can  note  any  faltering.  One  feels,  in  looking 
at  this  picture,  that  the  artist  worked  for  the 
supreme  joy  of  rendering  what  he  saw  as  he  saw  it. 

“ He  painted  the  thing  as  he  saw  it 
For  the  God  of  things  as  they  are.” 

This  may  not  seem  a good  thing  to  the  layman, 
but  any  artist  will  understand  Vermeer’s  happi- 
ness in  perfect  technical  achievement.  As  one 
looks  over  this,  everything  seems  well  made  — all 
one  can  say  of  it  is  that  some  things  are  even 
better  done  than  others. 

Perhaps  the  most  surprising  technical  thing  in 
it  is  the  rendering  of  the  chandelier.  Here  is  a 
most  intricate  matter  painted  with  perfect  sim- 
plicity. Note  the  way  in  which  certain  parts  are 

343 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

brought  out  sharp  and  other  parts  are  blurred. 
Mention  has  been  made  elsewhere  of  Vermeer’s 
treatment  of  “edges.”  In  places  the  edge  is 
made  quite  sharp,  in  others  it  is  fused  into  the 
background. 

This  insistence  on  edges  persists  through  the 
whole  picture.  In  looking  at  the  man’s  head, 
one  notes  where  the  hair  blurs  into  the  map  on 
the  light  side,  where  the  artist’s  dark  cap  comes 
sharp  against  the  map  where  the  map  is  light, 
blurs  a trifle  where  it  comes  darker,  sharpens  again 
where  it  comes  against  the  light  of  the  map  and 
the  easel. 

Any  bit  in  the  picture  which  one  chooses  to 
study  is  rendered  with  the  same  understanding  of 
the  character  of  the  edge. 

The  map,  again,  is  one  of  the  marvellous  things 
in  this  picture.  It  is  rendered  in  the  most  as- 
tonishing detail  and  yet  it  keeps  its  place  per- 
fectly well.  All  the  little  pictures  of  towns  are 
made  out  — the  little  ships  are  rendered  — the 
allegorical  design  in  the  corner  and  all  the  count- 
less minutiae  of  the  map  itself  are  made,  and  yet 
the  light  slides  across  it  as  simply  and  naturally 
as  it  does  on  one  of  the  bare  walls  Vermeer  so 
loved  to  paint. 


344 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

ARTIST  AT  WORK,  OR  THE  STUDIO 

Collection  of  Count  Czernin  von  Chudenitz,  Vienna 


'•  : RMEER  OF  DELFT 

’harp  and  other  parts  are  blurred. 

. m kground. 

r.ce  on  edges  persists  through  the 

picture.  In  looking  at  the  man's  head, 
notes  where  the  hair  blurs  into  the  map  on 
v I -ht  side,  where  the  artist’s  dark.  cap.  comes 
“h  ;ro  again  t the  map  where  the  map  is  light, 

T3J3<3  30  333MJI3V  VlAl 
OiaUTd  3HT  510  ,3510W  TA  T2JTHA 

ahvihiV  .STivranuHD  viov  vumhhsD  rviuoD  ho  worroaJJoD 

l he  map,  again,  is  one  oc  the  marvellous  things 

e . All  be  1 ’* tt • e pictures  o’  towns  c-’e 
out — the  liitle  ships  arc  rendered  — the 

• /%h s minutiae  of  the  map  itself  are  made,  and  yet 

r .<  does  on  one  “>f  the  bare  walta  Vermeer  so 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

In  colour  this  is  the  Vermeer  which  comes 
nearest  to  the  actual  aspect  of  nature.  In  looking 
at  it  one  simply  feels  the  colour  as  one  would  feel 
it  in  nature;  there  is  no  forced  tonality,  nor 
is  there  the  apparently  accidental  tonality  — the 
bluish  or  greenish  or  greyish  note  that  occurs  in 
some  of  Vermeer’s  pictures.  The  only  tonality  is 
that  which  always  exists  in  nature  — the  hardest 
to  get  and  the  most  beautiful.  The  only  way  to 
get  it  is  to  paint  each  colour  value  exactly  right, 
trusting  to  no  binding  “sauce”  to  pull  the  thing  to- 
gether; and  this,  apparently,  is  what  Vermeer  has 
done.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  this  picture 
is  so  interesting  to  modern  artists  — that  Vermeer 
has  here  accomplished  what  so  many  modern 
painters  are  trying  to  do.  He  has  achieved  a 
beautiful  tonality  simply  by  getting  his  thousand 
and  three  colour  values  right. 

Many  critics  have  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  artist  here  represented  is  Vermeer  himself, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  could  be.  These 
are  some  of  the  reasons.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  letters  on  the  map  are  in  positive,  not  in 
negative,  so  if  the  picture  were  done  in  a mirror 
it  must  have  been  with  two  mirrors,  a reflection 
of  a reflection.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  ar- 

345 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

range  two  mirrors  in  this  way,  and  one  fancies 
that  one  or  both  mirrors  would  have  shown  a 
double  edge.  Moreover,  it  would  seem  to  be  im- 
possible in  this  way  to  get  so  wide  an  angle  of 
vision  as  appears  in  this  picture.  And  last,  it 
would  have  been  quite  impossible  to  see  the  de- 
tailed forms  in  the  map,  which  are  rendered  in 
such  astonishing  clearness  and  detail,  in  a reflec- 
tion of  a reflection.  Yet  more,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  to  have  avoided  a distinct  greenish 
tone,  which  is  just  what  Vermeer  this  time,  for 
once  in  his  life,  has  managed  to  escape. 

Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot  considers  that  this 
Studio  is  the  same  as  the  Portrait  of  Vermeer  — in 
“a  room  with  rich  accessories,  painted  in  an  un- 
usually fine  style,”  of  the  1696  Amsterdam  Sale. 
Certainly  the  description  sounds  not  unlike  it, 
though  it  is  rather  vague.  But  it  would  seem  that 
the  reasons  just  given  were  enough  to  make  one 
doubt  if  the  two  pictures  were  the  same.  More- 
over, when  one  thinks  that  the  picture  measures 
4 feet  4 inches  by  4 feet  8 inches,  the  price  of 
45  florins  ($18)  seems  too  ridiculous  to  have  been 
paid  only  eighteen  years  after  his  death  for  one 
of  the  largest  and  most  highly  finished  works  of 
the  not  yet  forgotten  master. 

346 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Who  the  model  was  we  have  no  means  of  ascer- 
taining. One  would  like  to  think  that  it  may  have 
been  Pieter  de  Hooch,  who,  we  know,  was  in 
Delft  at  the  same  time  with  Vermeer  for  three 
or  four  years.  Unfortunately,  De  Hooch  was 
in  Delft  while  Vermeer  was  still  a young  man. 
This  picture  is  evidently,  from  its  technical  per- 
fection, one  of  Vermeer’s  latest.  So  the  identity 
of  the  artist  must  apparently  remain  forever 
unknown. 

An  interesting  detail  that  we  get  from  this 
painting  is  that  the  artist  has  sketched  in  his 
subject  with  white  chalk  and  is  painting  it  de 
■premier  coup  or  alia  prima , touch  by  touch,  with- 
out having  made  any  rub-in  or  ebauche.  While 
we  have  seen  that  the  artist  can  hardly  be  Ver- 
meer himself,  it  suggests  that  this  way  of  painting 
may  possibly  have  been  his  own  method.  Of 
course  he  may  have  felt  an  ironic  satisfaction  in 
painting  some  friend  who  was  working  the  wrong 
way.  But,  as  the  man  who  posed  for  this  must 
have  posed  for  a very  long  time,  as  is  evidenced 
by  the  finish  and  perfection  of  the  technique,  it 
seems  likely  that  he  was  a model  and  not  a real 
artist  who  could  hardly  have  spared  the  time. 
In  that  case  it  seems  likely  that  Vermeer  would 

347 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

have  himself  sketched  in  a start  on  the  canvas 
in  the  manner  in  which  he  was  apt  to  paint. 

It  is  strange  that  the  perfection  of  a man’s 
work  should  militate  against  it.  Yet  something 
like  this  has  happened  to  this  Studio.  In  sheer 
technique  it  is  probably  the  most  perfect  of  Ver- 
meer’s works  and  the  colour  is  as  we  have  seen, 
better  preserved  than  is  that  of  many  of  his  paint- 
ings. Yet,  because  the  colour  has  not  the  bluish- 
grey  quality  of  some  of  his  works,  the  picture  has 
never  met  with  quite  the  same  favour  among  many 
admirers  of  his  work  as  have  some  of  his  other 
pictures.  Notwithstanding  this,  it  is  a marvellous 
production.  It  carries  reality  as  far  as  Vermeer  ever 
carried  it.  Yet  it  is  a reality  that  is  wholly  artistic. 

It  is  a curious  and  rather  pathetic  thing  about 
this  picture  that  the  artist  should  be  represented 
as  painting  a figure  of  Renown,  for  Renown  passed 
Vermeer  by  for  many  years.  If  he  had  any  really 
literary  idea  in  painting  this  Renown,  he  must 
have  conceived  it  in  rather  ironic  vein.  And  surely 
he  was  well  punished  for  joking  about  the  Olym- 
pians. One  must  call  “Eumenides”  those  unnamed 
ones  who  bring  pain  and  punishment  to  evil  doers. 
The  Irish  call  their  fairies  the  “Good  People,” 
however  they  may  fear  them.  And  one  must  not 

343 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


jest  about  Renown  or  any  other  of  the  almighty 
gods  under  penalty  of  the  reward  that  was  meted 
out  to  Vermeer. 

Another  curious  detail,  which  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  noted  by  previous  writers,  is  the  fact 
that  the  cast  on  the  table  is  from  the  noble  head 
by  Michael  Angelo  commonly  called  Brutus.  Of 
course  it  is  well  known  that  many  Dutch  artists 
had  casts  from  the  antique.  Those  from  the 
Italian  were  not  so  common.  Though  Vermeer  and 
Michael  Angelo  were  so  different  in  many  ways, 
they  had  this  in  common  — an  understanding 
of  “planes”  and  a habit  of  indicating  their  work  in 
very  broad  planes.  This  is  particularly  marked  in 
the  Brutus , which  is  an  unfinished  head  just  roughed 
in  in  planes,  and  therefore  an  excellent  study  for  a 
beginner.  Doubtless  Vermeer,  with  his  liking  for 
beginning  a thing  in  broad  planes,  acquired  this  head 
on  that  account.  If  Leonard  Bramer  were  really  his 
master,  it  may  have  been  brought  from  Italy  by  him. 

The  pictures  named  in  the  foregoing  catalogue 
make  up,  so  far  as  one  is  aware,  all  the  known 
examples  of  Vermeer.  There  are,  however,  a num- 
ber of  pictures  mentioned  in  catalogues,  at  one 
time  or  at  another,  as  being  by  Vermeer. 

349 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


As  we  do  not  know  just  where  these  pictures 
are  at  present,  we  have  no  exact  means  of  ascer- 
taining their  authenticity.  A list  of  these  is,  how- 
ever, given  as  an  interesting  detail.  This  list  is 
made  up  from  Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot’s  admirable 
Catalogue  Raisonne , to  whom  due  acknowledgment 
is  hereby  made. 

A Young  Girl  Conversing  with  a Doctor. 

Canvas,  32  inches  by  15  inches. 

Sale:  J.  Hulswit,  Amsterdam,  1822. 

A Man  Reading. 

Copper,  17  inches  by  15  inches. 

Sale:  Leyden,  1821. 

The  Goldsmith’s  Shop.  — In  the  gold  and  silver- 
smith’s shop  four  tradesmen  sit  at  a table.  One 
has  a touchstone  in  his  hand.  There  are  also  two 
workmen. 

Canvas,  12  inches  by  13^  inches. 

Sale:  Barend  Kooy,  Amsterdam,  1820. 

A W oman  JV eighing  Gold.  — According  to  the 
description  in  the  sale  catalogue  this  picture  cor- 
responds precisely  to  the  picture  of  the  Nieuhoff 
Sale,  1777  (now  in  the  Widener  Collection).  The 
woman,  however,  wears  a red  dress  and  a black 

350 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


cap.  It  is  stated,  also,  in  this  case  that  an  open 
door  gives  a view  into  a second  room.  More- 
over, the  dimensions  differ  from  the  Widener 
picture. 

Canvas,  24  inches  by  21  inches. 

Sales:  The  Hague,  1780(f);  Amsterdam,  1809. 

At  the  Art-Dealers.  — A gentleman  sits,  leaning 
his  elbow  on  a table,  and  inspects  some  objects  of 
art  which  an  art-dealer  is  showing  him.  He  holds 
a paper  in  his  hand. 

Signed  on  the  paper,  “J.  v.  d.  Meer.” 

Panel,  11  inches  by  10  inches. 

Sale:  M.  Neven,  Cologne,  1879. 

The  Flower-Girl.  — A young  girl,  seen  at  three- 
quarters  length,  stands  facing  the  spectator. 
With  her  left  hand  she  holds  her  cloak,  and  with 
the  right  holds  out  a bunch  of  flowers.  Behind 
her  is  a stone  bridge  with  a balustrade,  beyond 
which  is  a high  wall  with  Roman  statues.  On  a 
pedestal  near  the  girl  are  a bird  and  a large  sculp- 
tured vase,  with  a spray  of  orange  blossoms. 

Canvas,  19^  inches  by  i6J/£  inches. 

Sale:  Clave-Bouhaben,  Cologne,  1894. 

A Young  Woman  Sewing.  — At  a window,  a 
woman  sits  sewing  beside  a table  covered  with  a 

35i 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

cloth  on  which  is  a beer-jug.  The  light  streams  in 
through  a window.  An  open-door  shows  another 
room  hung  with  gilt  leather. 

Canvas,  19  inches  by  15  inches. 

Sales:  Amsterdam,  1779,  according  to  W. 

Burger;  J.  Pekstok,  Amsterdam,  1792. 

A Lady  Making  Lace.  — She  sits  at  a table.  It 
is  finely  painted.  By  Vermeer  or  in  his  style. 
Panel,  9^  inches  by  8 inches. 

Sale:  D.  de  Jongh,  Rotterdam,  1810. 

A Woman  Making  Lace. 

20  inches  by  16  inches. 

Sale:  Hoorn,  1817. 

A Woman  Making  Lace.  — Fine  in  the  effect 
of  light,  brown  and  vigorously  painted. 

Panel,  12  inches  by  ioj^  inches. 

Sale:  H.  Stokvisch,  C.  Henning  and  others, 

Amsterdam,  1823. 

Woman  and  Boy  Sitting  by  the  Fireside  in  a Room. 
Panel,  24  inches  by  18  ipches. 

Sale:  A.  van  Beestingh  and  others,  Rotterdam, 
1832. 


352 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 

A Woman  at  W ork  with  a Child.  — A woman  in 
a silk  dress,  trimmed  with  fur,  sits  working  by  a 
table  in  an  interior.  A little  girl  offers  her  an 
apple. 

Canvas,  37  inches  by  24  inches. 

Sale:  Roos,  Amsterdam,  1841,  according  to  W. 
Burger. 

A Woman  with  Needlework  in  her  Lap.  — She 
looks  at  a child  seated  on  the  ground  near  her. 
By  Vermeer  or  in  his  manner. 

Panel,  36  inches  by  26  inches. 

Sales  (supplementary):  P.  M.  Kesler  and  others, 
Amsterdam,  1844;  J.  A.  A.  de  Lelie  and  others, 
Amsterdam,  1833. 

Woman  and  Child.  — In  the  background  of  a 
room  is  a young  woman,  brightly  illumined  by 
the  light  from  a window  to  the  left.  Through  a 
half-open  door  behind  her  is  seen  a bed.  In  front 
of  the  woman  is  a cradle  with  a sleeping  child: 
to  the  right  are  a small  stove,  kitchen  utensils  on 
shelves,  different  vegetables,  and  a cock  in  a hen- 
coop. In  the  foreground,  which  is  in  shadow,  an 
elderly  woman  is  busy  cooking  at  the  fireplace  to 
the  left;  about  her  are  pots  and  pans. 

353 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Signed,  “J.  v.  der  M;”  canvas,  14^  inches  by 
19)^2  inches. 

Sale:  C.  Triepel,  Munich,  1874. 

An  Old  Woman  with  a Reel.  — She  is  sitting 
almost  in  profile  and  is  seen  at  full  length,  almost 
life-size.  She  has  her  hands  in  her  lap.  To  the 
right  is  the  reel.  The  background  is  a light  wall. 

A small  object  on  the  wall  has  the  form  of  a 
monogram  of  Vermeer.  “ J.  v.  M.”  (the  letters  in- 
tertwined); canvas,  52  inches  by  44  inches. 

Ascribed  by  Philipps,  Eastlake,  W.  Burger,  and 
Waagen  to  Vermeer  of  Delft. 

Offered  to  the  National  Gallery,  London,  in  the 
time  of  W.  Burger,  for  £157  icxr.,  but  declined; 
afterwards  it  was  for  some  time  in  Burger’s  pos- 
session and  then  again  in  that  of  an  English  dealer. 

A Woman  Paring  Turnips.  — In  an  interior  a 
woman  is  paring  turnips.  Near  her  is  a child  in 
a cradle.  On  the  other  side  a man  sits  reading  by 
the  hearth. 

Panel,  23^  inches  by  19}^  inches. 

Sale:  J.  A.  Brentano,  Amsterdam,  1822. 

A Young  Woman  Skinning  an  Eel.  — A young 
woman,  shown  at  half  length,  sits,  with  her  head 

354 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 

A YOUNG  LADY  SEATED  AT  THE  SPINET 


National  Gallery,  London 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


to  the  left,  conversing  with  an  unseen  person. 
She  wears  a cap  and  a red  bodice  under  a purple 
jacket.  On  her  lap  she  holds  a dish  and  a napkin. 

Signed,  with  the  monogram;  canvas,  on  panel, 
12  inches  by  8%  inches. 

Sale:  Neville  D.  Goldsmid,  Paris,  1876. 

A Girl  with  a Cat.  — A young  girl  with  a cap 
and  a brown  jacket  is  petting  a cat.  She  leans 
her  hands  on  a partition. 

Canvas,  22  inches  by  18  inches. 

Sale:  E.  Ruelens,  Brussels,  1883. 

A Lady  with  a Maid-Servant  and  a Page. 

28  inches  by  25  inches. 

Sale:  Maclean,  London,  1903. 

An  Interior  with  a Gentleman  Washing  his  Hands. 
— With  a vista  and  figures. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1696. 

A Woman  Combing  her  Hair. 

15  inches  by  13  inches. 

Sale:  Pieter  de  Klok  — not  Blok,  as  W.  Burger 
says.  Amsterdam,  1744. 

A Woman  Washing  a Boy’s  Head  in  a Room. 

Sale:  H.  van  der  Heuvel  and  J.  Hackefort, 

Rotterdam,  1815. 


355 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A Domestic  Scene.  — Three  figures  in  an  inte- 
rior. 

Sale:  Rotterdam,  1820. 

A Domestic  Scene.  — Three  figures  in  an  inte- 
rior.  Possibly  identical  with  preceding  subject. 

Sale:  Rotterdam,  1832. 

A Man  Playing  Music  with  a Lady  in  an  Interior. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1696. 

A Lady  at  the  Spinet  with  a Gentleman.  — Both 
are  playing  music.  Through  an  open  window  are 
seen  some  houses. 

Canvas,  32  inches  by  25%  inches. 

Sale:  J.  J.  de  J.  J.  de  Faesch,  Amsterdam,  1833. 

The  Concert. 

15  inches  by  inches. 

Sale:  London,  1901. 

The  Love-Letter.  — In  an  interior  a page  hands  a 
letter  to  a lady. 

Panel,  15^  inches  by  12^2  inches. 

Sale:  Hope  Edwards  and  others,  London,  1901. 

A Lady  Writing.  — A well-dressed  lady  in  a 
morning  toilet  having  a yellow  jacket  trimmed 

356 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


with  fur,  sits  writing  at  a table  on  which  are  a 
casket  and  writing  materials.  She  looks  at  the 
spectator. 

Canvas,  i8J^  inches  by  14  inches. 

Sales:  (probably)  Amsterdam,  1696;  Dr.  Lucht- 
mans,  Rotterdam,  1816;  (probably)  J.  Kamer- 
mans,  Rotterdam,  1825;  H.  Reydon  and  others, 
Amsterdam,  1827;  Comte  F.  de  Robiano,  Brus- 
sels, 1837. 

A Merry  Company  in  a Room. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1696. 

A Gentleman  and  Lady  Eating  Oysters.  — A lady 
stands  in  a room  pouring  wine  into  a tall  glass 
which  she  holds  on  a silver  platter.  On  the  table 
near  her  are  a dish  of  oysters  and  a plate  of  bread. 
A gentleman  seated  near  it  watches  the  lady 
attentively. 

Canvas  or  panel,  19)^  inches  by  16  inches. 

Sale:  Jacob  Crammer  Simonsz,  Amsterdam,  1778. 

A Girl  and  a Cavalier.  — A young  man  is  court- 
ing a young  woman  who  holds  a wine  glass.  To 
the  left  is  a table  with  various  objects. 

Panel,  12  inches  by  9 ^ inches. 

Sale:  Dr.  Luchtmans,  Rotterdam,  1816. 

357 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

A Trooper  and  a Girl.  — In  an  open  hall  a 
trooper  sits,  holding  a half-clad  girl  on  his  knee. 
In  front  of  him  stands  a Cupid,  whom  the  girl 
beckons  to  her  while  she  points  to  the  soldier. 
To  the  right  is  a view  into  the  landscape.  On 
the  floor  are  various  trophies  of  war  — standards, 
trumpets,  and  so  forth. 

Panel,  16  inches  by  inches. 

Sale:  Von  Woyna  and  others,  Bonn,  1898. 

A Country  Fair. 

Sale:  J.  Kamermans,  Rotterdam,  1825. 

Head  of  a Person  in  Antique  Costume.  — Pen- 
dant to  the  Arenberg  Portrait  of  a Young  Girl. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1696. 

Portrait  of  a Young  Lady. — A half-length.  She 
wears  a red  dress  with  broad  white  sleeves,  and 
a large  felt  hat  with  plumes,  beneath  which  are 
seen  her  long  brown  curls. 

Panel,  29  inches  by  inches. 

Sale:  Neven,  Cologne,  1879. 

Portrait  of  Vermeer.  — In  an  interior  with  vari- 
ous accessories. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1896. 

358 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Portrait  of  a Young  Man. — Nearly  a half- 
length.  The  man  wears  a broad-brimmed  hat  of 
red  plush  and  a blue  cloak.  Strong  sunlight  falls 
on  his  left  cheek.  The  hat  brim  casts  a deep 
shadow  on  the  upper  part  of  the  face. 

Panel,  9 inches  by  7 inches. 

Sale:  Lafontaine,  Paris,  1822. 

Study  of  a Head.  — A boy  with  a broad-brimmed 
hat,  facing  the  spectator.  Painted  in  oils  on  paper. 

Sale:  Collection  of  drawings  formed  by  G. 

Leembruggen,  Amsterdam,  1896  (Suermondt).  This 
is  the  painting  thought  by  Plietzsch  to  be  a 
Vermeer. 

A View  of  Some  Houses. — This  must  have  been 
smaller  than,  or  of  inferior  quality  to,  the  Six  pic- 
ture, since  it  fetched  a lower  price. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1696. 

The  Oude  Gracht  in  Haarlem  near  Klein  Heilig- 
land.  — Numerous  countrymen  with  their  wives 
are  crossing  the  water  in  a boat  to  celebrate 
“Hartjesdag”  on  the  dunes. 

According  to  the  sales  catalogue,  the  picture 
bore  the  signature  — probably  added  — of  Berck- 

359 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Heyde,  but  according  to  the  general  opinion  it  was 
the  work  of  Vermeer  of  Delft. 

Panel,  18  inches  by  15^  inches. 

Sale:  G.  van  der  Pals,  Rotterdam,  1824. 

View  of  a Street  in  Delft. 

Panel,  14  inches  by  9 inches. 

Sale:  Abraham  de  Haas,  Amsterdam,  1824. 

A Landscape  with  Trees. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1825. 

Part  of  a Town  with  a View  into  an  Entry. 
Panel. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1825. 

A Picture  of  a Street.  — In  front  of  an  old 
house,  a girl  converses  with  an  aged  woman  who 
reclines  at  a window.  Through  a doorway  is  seen 
the  street. 

Panel. 

Sale:  Amsterdam,  1828. 

The  Back  of  a House  with  a Courtyard. 

Canvas. 

Sales:  Amsterdam,  1828;  Amsterdam,  1830. 

Two  Pictures  of  Streets  with  Figures. 

Panel,  14  inches  by  9 inches  each. 

360 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Sales:  D.  Teengs,  Amsterdam,  1 8 1 1 ; J.  J.  de 
J.  J.  de  Faesch,  Amsterdam,  1833. 

Procession  at  the  Gateway  of  Leyden  University 
on  Degree-Day. 

Canvas,  29  inches  by  24  inches. 

Sale:  P.  van  Romondt,  Amsterdam,  1833. 

Scene  in  a Courtyard.  — Two  boys  are  playing 
in  the  straw  in  the  courtyard  of  a brick  house. 
A woman  stands  in  a doorway  looking  on.  To 
the  right,  down  a passage,  is  seen  a street. 

Panel,  18  inches  by  14  inches. 

Sale:  A.  W.  C.  Baron  van  Nagell  van  Ampsen, 
the  Hague,  1851. 

A Picture  of  a Street.  — A view  in  a town  of 
picturesque  houses  with  four  figures:  the  dimen- 
sions recall  the  views  of  towns  by  J.  Vrel. 

Sales:  H.  Reydon  and  others,  Amsterdam,  1827; 
A.  W.  C.  Baron  van  Nagell  van  Ampsen,  the 
Hague,  1851. 

A Violent  Storm  at  Sea.  — With  a shipwreck  and 
many  figures. 

Panel,  20  inches  by  16  inches. 

361 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

In  the  possession  of  Von  Krane-Matena,  Darm- 
stadt, in  1863. 

One  can  hardly  think  of  a subject  more  unlike 
those  of  Vermeer  or  more  unfitted  to  his  talent. 

A Public  Place  at  the  Hague.  — In  the  square  are 
a pump  and  lime  trees.  In  the  right  background 
are  houses  of  varied  architecture  with  picturesque 
angles.  In  the  foreground  in  full  light  is  a knife- 
grinder,  seen  in  profile.  He  converses  with  an 
old  woman  wearing  a grey  felt  hat,  who  leans  on 
a stick  and  holds  a bottle  in  her  right  hand. 
Behind  them  a young  woman  waits  with  folded 
arms  for  the  knife-grinder  to  sharpen  her  knife. 
She  listens  absently  to  the  compliments  which  a 
gallant  is  paying  her.  A huntsman  with  a dog 
crosses  the  square.  Other  figures,  here  and  there, 
are  going  away  in  different  directions.  A cart 
with  two  white  horses  comes  forward. 

52  inches  by  77  inches. 

The  picture  can  hardly  have  been  by  Vermeer, 
since  nothing  is  known  concerning  any  such  pic- 
ture from  his  hand. 

Sale:  Demidoff,  San  Donato,  near  Florence, 

1880. 


362 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Other  Pictures 

There  are  certain  pictures  which  at  one  time  or 
another  have  been  attributed  to  Vermeer:  yet 
later  they  have  been  found  to  be  by  other  men; 
so  at  least  the  opinion  of  experts  has  decided. 
The  following  list  taken  from  Dr.  H.  de  Groot’s 
Catalogue  Raisonne  gives  most  of  these. 

List  of  Pseudo  Vermeers 

1.  The  Family  Group , in  the  Czernin  Gallery, 
is  by  Renesse. 

2.  The  Soldiers  at  a Tavern , in  the  Borghese 
Gallery,  is  by  P.  de  Hooch  (see  262  in  Dr.  H.  de 
Groot’s  Catalogue  Raisonne  of  De  Hooch’s  work). 

3.  Card-Players , No.  12  in  the  Angiot  Sale, 
Paris,  1875,  is  by  P.  de  Hooch  (see  264,  H.  de  G.’s 
Catalogue). 

4.  Family  in  the  Courtyard  of  the  House , in  the 
Vienna  Academy,  is  by  P.  de  Hooch  (see  321  H. 
de  G.’s  Catalogue). 

5.  Two  Ladies  and  Two  Gentlemen  in  an  Interior , 
in  the  Havermeyer  Collection,  New  York,  is  by 
P.  de  Hooch  (see  192  H.  de  G.’s  Catalogue). 

6.  The  Music  Lesson,  in  the  Wallace  Collection, 

363 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

is  by  Jan  Steen  (see  412,  H.  de  G.’s  Catalogue  of 
Jan  Steen’s  work). 

7.  The  Woman  Peeling  Apples , in  the  Wallace 
Collection,  is  by  P.  de  Hooch  (see  33  H.  de  G.’s 
Catalogue). 

8.  A Young  Woman  Peeling  an  Apple  for  her 
Child , in  the  Imperial  Gallery,  Vienna,  is  by  G. 
Terburg. 

9.  Concert  with  Four  Persons , in  the  Kurt  Col- 
lection, Berlin,  was  offered  to  the  Brussels  Museum, 
in  1861,  as  a P.  de  Hooch. 

10.  The  sleeping  Maid-Servant , in  W.  Burger’s 
Collection  in  1866  and  No.  34  in  the  Biirger- 
Thore  Sale,  Paris,  1892,  is  not  by  Vermeer. 

11.  Old  Woman  Reading  the  Bible , in  the  Col- 
lection of  Adolphe  Schoss,  Paris,  is  a fully  signed 
Jacobus  Vrel. 

12.  A Boy  Blowing  Soap-Bubbles,  is  by  Esaias 
Boursse. 

13.  A Young  Gentleman  Writing  a Letter  is  by 
G.  Metzu  (see  185  H.  de  G.’s  Catalogue  of 
Metzu). 

14.  The  so-called  Portrait  of  the  Artist  in 
W.  Burger’s  Collection  in  1866,  and  now  in  the 
possession  of  Porges,  Paris,  is  by  C.  de  Man. 

364 


Pieter  de  Hooch 

FAMILY  IN  THE  COURTYARD  OF  A HOUSE 
Academie  der  bildenden  Kunste,  Vienna 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


15.  The  Country  House , in  the  Kaiser  Friedrich 
Museum,  Berlin,  is  by  Dirck  Jan  van  der  Laan. 

16.  The  Vestibule  of  the  St.  Agatha  Cloister , in 
the  Rijks  Museum,  is  probably  by  E.  de  Witte. 

17.  Interior  of  a Cloister , in  W.  Burger’s  Col- 
lection, is  by  J.  Vrel. 

18.  A Nun  Conversing  with  a Woman  in  the 
Street , in  W.  Burger’s  Collection  in  1866,  is  by 
J.  Vrel. 

19.  Interior  of  a Town , in  the  Rijks  Museum, 
No.  2600,  is  signed  J.  Vrel.  It  was  in  W.  Burger’s 
Collection  in  1866,  and  was  No.  33  in  the  Biirger- 
Thore  Sale,  Paris,  1892. 

20.  Interior  of  a Town , in  the  Hudtwalker  Col- 
lection, Hamburg,  in  Burger’s  time,  is  by  J.  Vrel. 

21.  Pictures  of  a Town , certainly  not  by  Vermeer. 

22.  Landscapes,  certainly  not  by  Vermeer,  but 
by  his  namesake  at  Haarlem. 

23.  Three  still-life  pieces,  not  by  Vermeer; 
the  one  in  the  Hermitage  is  certainly  by  M.  de 
Hondekoeter. 

24.  Pictures  which  W.  Burger  himself  only 
claimed  very  doubtfully  for  Vermeer. 

It  is,  of  course,  quite  impossible  to  give  the 
precise  order  in  which  Vermeer’s  pictures  were 

365 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

painted.  At  the  same  time  one  may  hazard  a 
shrewd  guess  as  to  whether  a picture  were  painted 
early  or  late  in  his  career.  Indeed,  his  pictures 
would  seem  to  divide  themselves  rather  easily  into 
an  early,  middle,  and  late  period.  For  instance, 
the  Courtesan , Mary  and  Martha , and  the  Diana 
strike  one  at  once  as  being  early  pictures.  On  the 
other  hand,  from  the  finished  perfection  of  their 
technique,  the  Studio , the  New  Testament , and  the 
Love-Letter  (Amsterdam)  would  seem  among  his 
latest.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  pick  out  at  once  a 
picture  of  the  middle  period,  but  those  which 
seem  neither  to  fit  the  early  nor  the  late  group 
fall  naturally  enough  into  the  middle. 

Again,  certain  pictures  like  the  View  of  Delft , the 
Milk-woman , and  the  Street  in  Delft  seem  from  their 
heavy  and  often  'pointille  technique  to  be  early, 
but  not  so  early  as  the  three  above  mentioned. 
And  so,  also,  certain  pictures,  like  the  Music 
Lesson  of  Windsor  or  the  Pearl  Necklace , ap- 
pear, from  the  beauty  of  their  technique  to  be 
late  ones,  and  yet,  because  they  do  not  have  quite 
the  same  ease  of  handling,  one  hesitates  to  in- 
clude them  among  the  very  latest. 

Assuming  that  pictures  heavy  in  handling,  hot, 
and  low-keyed  belong  to  Vermeer’s  early  times, 

366 


VERMEER'S  PICTURES 


we  get  two  other  groups.  One,  of  the  three  As- 
tronomer pictures,  might  follow  after  the  Milk- 
maid, the  View  of  Delft , and  Street  in  Delft.  These 
latter,  from  their  heavy  handling  and  pointille 
touch,  might  seem  to  follow  directly  after  the  first 
suggested  group. 

Next  to  the  Astronomers  might  come  a group 
comprising  The  Sleeping  Girl , the  Soldier  and  the 
Laughing  Girl , and  the  Reader  of  Dresden.  These 
are  placed  after,  because  their  subject  seems  to 
suggest  Vermeer’s  later  work,  though  the  tech- 
nique suggests  something  earlier. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  find  a group  of  pictures 
which  by  their  technique  seem  quite  late  and  yet 
do  not  have  the  accomplished  ease  of  the  Studio 
or  the  Love-Letter , nor  even  quite  the  finish  of 
pictures  like  the  Music  Lesson  or  the  Woman  with 
Pearls. 

Of  this  group  one  might  cite  the  Woman  Reading 
of  the  Amsterdam  Gallery  or  the  Lace-Maker  of 
the  Louvre. 

In  the  Pearl  Necklace  group  would  come  a num- 
ber of  Vermeer’s  pictures.  Among  them  might  be 
the  Young  Lady  seated  at  the  Spinet  of  the  National 
Gallery,  which  shows  such  ease  of  execution  that 
one  is  almost  inclined  to  include  it  in  the  last  group. 

367 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 


Near  this  should  come  the  National  Gallery 
Young  Lady  at  the  Virginals , painted  in  much 
the  same  manner.  Dr.  H.  de  Groot  is  inclined 
to  believe  that  the  Lady  Playing  the  Guitar  was 
painted  at  about  the  same  time.  With  these  might 
go  the  Girl  at  the  Spinet  of  the  Beit  Collection, 
which  looks  like  a study  for  the  National  Gallery 
Young  Lady  at  the  Spinet. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  most  of  Vermeer’s 
musical  subjects  seem  to  group  themselves  to- 
gether; that  is,  from  the  technique  one  guesses 
that  most  of  them  were  painted  at  somewhere 
near  the  same  time.  Thus  the  Lady  with  the  Lute 
seems,  from  composition  and  handling,  to  have 
been  painted  at  a time  not  far  distant  from  these 
others,  though  possibly  a little  earlier. 

There  is  another,  the  Young  Woman  at  the  Case- 
ment, which  from  its  composition  and  the  ease 
of  its  handling  seems  to  ally  itself  with  this 
group. 

In  trying  to  arrive  at  something  like  the  order 
in  which  Vermeer’s  pictures  were  painted,  one 
sometimes  puts  an  inferior  picture  at  a later  date 
than  a very  good  one.  For  instance,  the  Milk- 
woman, one  of  his  finest  productions,  is  placed 
very  early.  But  one  judges  the  lateness  of  date 

368 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


of  these  pictures  by  the  ease,  suavity,  and  freedom 
of  the  technique.  The  Milkwoman  with  all  its 
merits  is  rather  laboured,  while  a picture  like 
the  Lady  at  the  Spinet , obviously  not  so  fine, 
is  placed  quite  late  on  account  of  the  accomplished 
ease  of  its  technique.  It  is  true  that  certain 
painters  toward  the  end  of  their  life  have  devel- 
oped a fumbling  technique,  but  these  lived  till  old 
age.  It  should  be  remembered  that  Vermeer  died 
while  quite  young,  at  the  age  of  forty-three.  It 
seems  safe  to  assume  that  in  this  short  life  his 
technique  steadily  became  easier,  more  accomplished, 
freer. 

On  this  basis  one  is  inclined  to  place  certain 
vastly  fine  pictures,  like  the  Pearl  Necklace  and 
the  Windsor  Music  Lesson , a little  earlier  than  the 
Lady  at  the  Spinet.  The  Concert , by  composition, 
surface,  and  technique,  groups  itself  with  the  Music 
Lesson ; and  the  W oman  IV eighing  Pearls  seems 
about  the  same  time  as  the  Pearl  Necklace , though 
a little  later,  one  would  guess.  In  the  same  way 
one  would  place  the  Lady  Writing  a Letter  of 
the  Beit  Collection  and  the  Lady  and  a Maid 
Servant  of  the  Simon  Collection  a little  earlier,  be- 
cause with  all  their  finesse  they  seem  a trifle 
heavier-handed. 


369 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

We  have,  then,  finally  indicated  six  groups, 
which  might  be  called  the  Courtesan  group,  the 
Milk-woman  group,  the  Astronomer  group,  and,  at 
the  other  end  of  the  painter’s  life  — the  Lace- 
Maker  group,  the  Pearl  Necklace  group,  and  the 
Studio  group. 

There  are  left  a few  pictures,  not  of  quite  the 
masterly  technique  of  the  later  ones  — not  so 
well  drawn  for  one  thing  — yet  rather  more  ac- 
complished than,  even  though  hardly  so  good  as, 
some  of  the  earlier  ones.  Of  these  one  might  cite 
the  Coquette  of  the  Brunswick  Gallery,  the  Girl 
Drinking  Wine  of  Berlin,  and  Mr.  Frick’s  Singing 
Lesson. 

Vermeer,  one  might  guess,  like  other  great  paint- 
ers, suffered  a slight  lapse  somewhere  in  the  middle 
of  his  career.  His  work  seems  to  falter.  Later 
his  talent  re-affirms  itself.  He  seems  also  to 
have  learned  better  just  what  he  could  do  and 
what  he  could  not  do,  and  thus  we  have  the 
later  masterpieces. 

The  portraits  are  exceedingly  difficult  to  place, 
because  they  are  done  in  a manner  rather  different 
from  the  small  pieces.  One  would  guess,  however, 
that  if  the  Brussels  Young  Man  with  a Hat  be 
Vermeer’s  work  it  was  done  rather  early. 

370 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


On  the  other  hand,  one  would  suppose  the  two 
heads  of  young  girls  — that  of  the  Hague  and 
that  of  the  Arenberg  Collection  — were  painted 
quite  late  in  Vermeer’s  short  life.  Not  only 
the  accomplished  technique  leads  to  this  conclu- 
sion, but  the  fact  that  the  two  girls,  if 
they  were  his  daughters  (which  seems  probable 
enough)  would  have  been  too  young  earlier  in  his 
life. 

The  Woman , of  Buda-Pesth,  is  hard  to  place. 
Dr.  Hofstede  de  Groot,  however,  says  that  the 
costume  would  place  it  at  about  1655-1660.  This 
would  make  it  about  the  time  of  the  Procuress. 
The  technique,  however,  more  flowing  and  ac- 
complished, would  seem  to  indicate  a rather  later 
time. 

From  all  these  considerations  we  arrive  at  a 
provisional  list,  giving,  not,  indeed,  the  precise 
order  of  his  works,  but  possibly  suggesting  a 
grouping  which  may  not  be  wholly  amiss.  Such 
a list  might  run  somewhat  as  follows: 

GROUP  I 

The  Courtesan 
Mary  and  Martha 
The  Toilet  of  Diana 

371 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Portrait  of  a Woman,  Buda-Pesth 
Portrait  of  a Young  Man,  Brussels 

GROUP  n 

The  Milk-woman 
View  of  Delft 
Street  in  Delft 

GROUP  in 

The  Geographer 

The  Astronomer,  Late  Baron  A.  de  Rothschild 
The  Astronomer,  Vicomte  du  Bus  de  Gisignies 

GROUP  IV 

The  Soldier  and  the  Laughing  Girl 
The  Sleeping  Girl 
The  Reader,  Dresden 

GROUP  V 

The  Coquette 

The  Taste  of  Wine 

The  Singing  Lesson,  Frick  Collection 

GROUP  VI 

The  Reader,  Amsterdam 
The  Lace-Maker 

GROUP  VII 

Portrait,  The  Hague 
Portrait,  Arenberg  Collection 

372 


Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft 


THE  ASTRONOMER 


Collection  of  the  late  Baron  Alphonse  de  Rothschild,  Paris 


VERMEER’S  PICTURES 


Lady  with  a Maid  Servant , Simon  Collection 

Lady  W riting  Letter , Beit  Collection 

The  Music  Lesson , Windsor 

The  Concert 

The  Pearl  Necklace 

Lady  with  a Lute 

Lady  Writing , Morgan  Collection 

Lady  Weighing  Gold 

Young  Woman  at  Casement 

Lady  at  Virginals 

Lady  with  Guitar 

Young  Lady  seated  at  the  Spinet,  National  Gallery 
Girl  at  the  Spinet,  Beit  Collection 

GROUP  VIII 

The  New  Testament 

The  Love-Letter,  Amsterdam 

The  Studio 

There  remains  only  The  Girl  with  the  Flute , 
which  does  not  seem  to  place  itself  with  any  of 
these  groups. 


373 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


’ 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Dirk  Everts  van  Bleyswyck.  — Beschrijving  der  Stad 
Delft.  Arnold  Bon.  1667. 

Balthazar  deMonconys.  — Journal  des  Voyages.  Lyons. 
1676. 

Houbraken.  — Lives  of  Dutch  Painters.  Amsterdam. 
1719. 

Eberlein.  — Catalogue  of  the  Brunswick  Museum.  1776. 
Gerard  Hoet.  — Recueil  des  Catalogues. 

Lebrun.  — Galerie  des  Peintres  flamands,  hollandais  et 
allemands.  Paris.  1796. 

Gault  de  Saint-Germain.  — Guides  des  Amateurs.  Ecoles 
allemandes,  flamandes,  hollandaises.  Paris.  1818. 
R.  Van  Eynden  et  A.  Van  Willingen.  — Geschiednis  der 
Vaderlandsche  Schilderkunst.  Haarlem.  1816. 
Desguerrois.  — Musee  royal  de  La  Haye.  Amsterdam. 
1833. 

John  Smith.  — Catalogue  raisonne  of  the  Works  of  the  most 
eminent  Dutch,  Flemish  and  French  painters.  Lon- 
don, Smith  and  Sons.  1839-1842. 

Immerzeel.  — Hollandsche  en  Vlaamsche  Kunstenaars. 

Amsterdam,  Van  Kesteren.  1843.  Volume  III. 
Kramm.  — De  Levens  en  Werken  der  Hollandsche  en 
Vlaamsche  Kunstschilders,  Beeld  Louwers , Graveurs 
en  Bouwmeesters.  Amsterdam.  1858. 

377 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Waagen. — Manuel  de  Vhistoire  de  la  Peinture.  Tra- 
duction Hymans.  Bruxelles-Paris.  1864. 

Bode.  — Studien  z ur  Geschichte  der  Holldndischen  Malerei. 
Brunswick.  1863.  (To  be  consulted  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Bramer.) 

Viardot.  — M usees  de  V Allemagne.  Paris,  i860. 

M.  Chaumelin.  — Tresors  de  l' Art  de  la  Provence. 
Paris.  1862. 

Lagrange.  — La  Collection  Dufour  a Marseille.  Gazette 
des  Beaux-Arts.  1859. 

Mantz.  — La  Collection  Dumont.  Gazette  des  Beaux- 
Arts.  i860. 

V illot.  — Catalogue  du  Alusee  du  Louvre.  1852. 

M.  Ducamp.  — En  Hollande.  Paris.  1859. 

W.  Burger-Thore.  — Les  Musees  de  Hollande.  Paris. 
Renouard.  1858. 

La  Galerie  d’Arenberg.  Brussels.  1859. 

Vermeer  de  Delft.  Gazette  des  Beaux-Arts.  Paris.  1866. 
Catalogue  de  la  Galerie  Suermondt.  i860. 

Th.  Gautier.  — Moniteur.  June,  1858. 

Fromentin. — Les  Maitres  d’ autrefois.  Belgique-Holland. 
Paris,  1877. 

H.  Havard.  — L'Art  et  les  Artistes  hollandais.  Paris, 
Quantin.  1880. 

La  Peinture  hollandaise.  Paris,  Quantin.  1880. 

Van  der  Meer.  Collection  des  artistes  celebres. 
Paris.  1883. 

F.  D.  O.  Obreen.  — Archief  voor  N ederlandsche  Kunst- 
eeschiedenis.  Rotterdam.  1882.  Fourth  part. 

378 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Montegut.  — Les  Pays-Bas.  Paris.  1884. 

Kasteren.  — La  Collection  de  Mme.  Veuve  Van  der 
Hoop.  Amsterdam.  1861. 

Woltmann  and  Woermann.  Geschichte  der  Malerei. 
Leipsic.  A.  Seeman.  1888. 

De  Stuers.  — Notice  historique  et  descriptive  des  tableaux 
exposes  dans  le  Musee  royal  de  La  II aye.  The 
Hague,  Nyhoff.  1874. 

Dr.  A.  Bredius.  — Les  Chefs-d'ceuvre  du  Musee  royal 
d}  Amsterdam.  Translation  of  E.  Michel.  Mu- 

nich, Hanfstaengl.  Paris,  Librairie  de  l’Art. 

Die  Meisterwerke  der  Koniglichen  Gemalde  Galerie  in 
Haag.  Munich,  Hanfstaengl. 

Amsterdam  in  de  Zeventiende  Eeuw.  By  different 
writers.  The  Hague.  1897.  (Chapter  on  Paint- 
ing.) Peintures  du  Musee  de  I'Etat  a Amsterdam. 
1897. 

Catalogue  du  Musee  de  La  Haye.  (See  last  edition  of 
the  Catalogue  resume  in  German.  1907.) 

Ein  Pseudo  Vermeer  in  der  Berliner  Galerie.  Kunst- 
chronik.  Leipsic.  16  Nov.,  1882. 

The  Vermeer  of  the  De  Grez  Collection.  Kunstchro- 
nik.  Leipsic.  May,  1906. 

Articles  in  Oud  Holland.  Amsterdam.  1883-1897. 

C.  Lemke.  — Populdre  Aesthetic.  Leipsic.  A.  Seemann. 
1870. 

H.  L.  Berckenhoff.  — Notre  Art , in  Pays-Bas.  Pub- 
lished by  the  Cercle  des  Journalistes  Neerlandais. 
Amsterdam.  1898. 


379 


JAN  VERMEER  OF  DELFT 

Lafenestre  and  Richtenberger.  — La  Peinture  en 
Europe.  Le  Louvre.  La  Hollande.  La  Belgique.  . 
L.  H.  May,  Paris.  1895-1901. 

G.  Geffroy.  — Les  Musees  <T Europe:  Le  Louvre.  La 

National  Gallery.  La  Hollande.  La  Belgique. 
Librairie  Nillson.  Paris.  1902-1906. 

A.  J.  Wauters.  — Vermeer  in  the  Museum  at  Brussels. 
Burlington  Magazine,  December,  1905.  Art  Mod- 
erne,  Brussels,  Jan.,  1906. 

Catalogue  historique  et  descriptif  des  tableaux  anciens 
du  Musee  de  Bruxelles.  3me  Edition.  Brussels. 
Van  Oest  and  Co.  1907. 

Maurice  Saey.  — Messager  de  Bruxelles.  Feb.,  1906. 

Les  Des  sous  a Bruxelles.  Brussels.  1908. 

W.  Martin.  — La  jeune  fille  a la  Flute  de  Vermeer  de 
Delft.  V Art  Flamand  et  Hollandais.  Antwerp. 
July,  1906. 

Articles  in  Oud  Holland,  new  series. 

Th.  von  Frimmel.  — Blatter  fur  Gemaldekunde.  April, 
1906. 

Catalogues  of  the  Museums  of  Berlin,  of  Dresden,  of 
Brunswick,  of  Frankfort,  of  the  National  Gallery, 
of  the  Amsterdam  Museum,  of  the  Hague  Museum, 
that  of  Buda-Pesth,  of  the  Louvre,  and  of  the  Met- 
ropolitan Museum  of  New  York. 

Notes  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  Vols.  VII  and  VIII; 

also  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Bildende  Kunst,  Leipsic. 
Arsene  Alexandre.  VanderMeer.  U Art  et  les  Artistes. 
Paris.  Oct.,  1905. 


380 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Gustave  Vanzype.  — Vermeer  de  Delft.  G.  Van  Oest 
and  Company.  Brussels.  1908. 

Dr.  C.  Hofstede  de  Groot. — Jan  Vermeer  van  Delft 
en  Carel  Fabritius.  Amsterdam.  Scheltema,  and 
Holkema.  1907.  With  large  plates  reproducing  all 
the  pictures  of  the  catalogue. 

A Catalogue  raisonne  of  the  works  of  the  most  eminent 
Dutch  Painters  of  the  Seventeenth  Century : based 
on  the  work  of  John  Smith.  Translated  by  Ed- 
ward G.  Hawke.  Macmillan  and  Co.,  London.  1907. 

Wilhelm  Bode.  — Rembrandt  und  seine  Zeitgenossen. 
Lepsic.  1907. 

Jan  Veth.  — Im  Schatten  Alter  Kunst.  Berlin.  1910. 

Eduard  Plietzsch.  Vermeer  van  Delft.  Leipsic.  1911. 


381 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Altman,  the  late  Benjamin,  260 
Amsterdam,  Sale  of  1696,  237 
Apprenticeship  of  Dutch  Artists,  79 
Apshoven,  Ferdinand  van,  79 
Arenberg  Gallery,  333 
Aristocracy,  preferences  of,  39 
Art,  periods  of,  20 
Art-training,  Dutch,  76 
Asselyn,  47 
Astronomer,  The 

Du  Bus  de  Gisignies  Collection, 
334 

Rothschild  Collection,  332 
Stadel’sches  Institute,  327 
At  the  Art  Dealer's , 351 

Back  of  House  with  a Courtyard, 
360 

Backhuysen,  Ludolph,  48 
Bargue,  134 

Beit,  the  late  Alfred,  275 
Benson,  Frank,  232 
Berghem,  48 

Berlin,  Royal  Print  Collection,  316 

Bertillon  System,  30 

Bibliography,  377 

Bleyswyck,  Dirck  van,  61 

Bloemart,  Abraham,  47 

Blue  canvas,  Vermeer’s  use  of,  99 

Bon,  Arnold,  61,  74 

Both,  Jan,  47 

Boursse,  Elias,  95 

Bramer, 

Leonard,  75 
Pieter,  75 

Brunswick,  Picture  Gallery,  313 
Brussels,  Museum  of,  337 


Buda-Pesth,  Museum  of,  339 
Biirger-Thore,  55,  57,  59,  66,  69,  94, 
295 

Bus  de  Gisignies,  Vicomte  du,  334 
Caravaggio,  153 

Catalogue  Raisonne  of  the  known 
works  of  Vermeer  of  Delft,  246 
Characteristics,  Vermeer’s,  30 
Chardin,  210 
Chiaroscuro,  205 
Dutch  study  of,  170 
Christ  at  the  House  of  Mary  and 
Martha,  280 
Cleansers,  picture,  100 
Coats  Collection,  280 
Collectors,  Dutch,  42,  43,  44 
Colour  values,  explanation  of,  145 
Concert,  The,  246,  356 
Conversation  pieces,  40 
Country  Fair,  358 
Courtesan,  The,  188,  319 
Crucifixion,  The,  252 
Cuyp,  Albert,  48 
Czernin  Gallery,  341 

Da  Vinci,  Leonardo,  204 
his  impersonal  vision,  27 
De  Camp,  Joseph,  232 
Degas,  refined  technique  of,  18 
De  Groot,  Hofstede,  156,  241 
Opinion  on  The  Studio,  346 
De  Hooch,  Pieter,  8,  87,  197 
composition  and  design,  165 
picture  in  Wallace  Collection,  167 
treatment  of  sunlight,  157 
Delaroche,  H.,  60 

385 


INDEX 


Delft,  53-55 
Van  der  Meer  of,  56 
ware,  174 
De  Man,  94 
Dewing,  Thomas,  228 
De  Witte,  Emanuel,  95 
Domestic  Scene,  356 
Dou,  Gerard,  47,  61 
Dresden  Gallery,  319,  324 
Due,  Jan  le,  91 
Du  Camp,  Maxime,  66 
Du  Jardin,  Karel,  48 
Diirer,  Albert,  78 
Dutch  religious  painting,  46 
Dutch  types,  37 

Eastlake,  Sir  Charles,  57 
“Edges,”  4 
El  Greco,  26,  73 
Evelyn,  John,  43 

Fabritius,  Karel,  54,  61,  72 
death  of,  74 
Flinck,  Govaert,  92 
Flower  Girl,  The,  35 1 
Forge  of  Vulcan,  5 
Fragonard,  delicate  art  of,  18 
French  influence,  22 
Frick,  H.  C.,  252,  256 
Fromentin,  Eugene,  48 
Fused  rendering,  26 

Gainsborough,  38 
Gardner,  Mrs.  John  L.,  246 
Gautier,  Theophile,  66 
Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  Burger’s  arti- 
cles in,  60 
Gelder,  Aart  de,  90 
Gentleman  and  a Young  Lady, 
252 

Gentleman  and  Lady  Eating  Oysters, 
357 

Gentleman  Making  Music,  and  a Lady, 
242 

Gentleman  IV ashing  his  Hands,  238,  242 
Gesture,  Vermeer’s  treatment  of,  139 
Giorgione,  personality  of,  3 
Gipsy  Woman,  The,  252 
Girl  and  a Cavalier,  357 


Girl  Asleep,  A,  260 

Girl  Drinking  with  a Gentleman,  3 10 

Girl  Reading  a Letter,  281,  324 

Girl  with  a Cat,  355 

Girl  with  Mandolin,  267 

Girl  with  the  Wine  Glass,  313 

Goya,  29 

Grundmann,  Otto,  230 
Haarlem, 

Van  der  Meer  of,  56 
Vermeer  of,  65 
Hals,  Franz,  102 
Havard,  Henry,  70 
Head  of  a Person  in  Antique  Costume, 
358 

Head  of  Young  Girl,  The  Hague, 
123,  296 

Heem,  Jan  Daniel  de,  47 

Herrera,  73 

Holland, 

culmination  of  its  art,  21 
in  Vermeer’s  day,  35 
riches  of,  36 
Hondekoeter,  43 
Honthorst,  37 
Houbraken,  63 
House  in  Delft,  53,  289 
Huntington,  Mrs.  H.  C.,  258 
Huysum,  Van,  43 

Impersonality,  Vermeer’s,  202 
Impressionism,  149 
Interior  with  a Gentleman  Washing  his 
Hands,  355 

Jan  Steen,  89 
Japanese, 

composition,  characteristics  of,  171 
possible  influence  of,  175 
Johnson,  John  G.,  267 

Kaiser  Friedrich  Museum,  308,  310 
Knoedler  and  Company,  264 
Koedijk,  Nicholas,  91 
Koninck,  Philip  de,  90 

Laar,  Pieter  Van,  47 
Lace  Maker,  The,  103,  330 


386 


INDEX 


Lady  and  a Maid-Servant , A,  317 
Lady  and  Gentleman  at  a Spinet,  277 
Lady  at  the  Spinet  with  a Gentleman, 
356 

Lady  Making  Lace,  A,  352 
Lady  with  a Maid-Servant  ana  a Page, 
355 

Lady  with  Lute,  258 
Lady  Writing,  250,  356 
Lairesse,  Gerard  de,  251 
Landscape  with  Trees,  360 
Lesson,  The,  245 
Louvre,  Museum  of  the,  330 
Love-Letter,  A,  Beit  Collection,  275 
Rijks  Museum,  286 
Unknown,  356 

Maes,  Nicholas,  199 
influence  of  French  art  on,  22 
Maid-Servant  Pouring  out  Milk,  284 
Man  Playing  Music  with  a Lady  in  an 
Interior,  356 
Man  Reading,  A,  350 
Manet,  Edouard,  129 
Mantz,  Paul,  66 
Marseus,  Otto,  43 
Mary  and  Martha,  46 
Materials,  artist’s,  82 
Merry  Company  in  a Room,  357 
Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  248 
Metzu,  Gabriel,  8,  88,  196 
changing  of  values,  120 
his  painting,  The  Sick  Child,  168 
lack  of  refinement,  17 
skill  10 

treatment  of  half  lights,  1 19 
Meyer,  Claus,  217 
Michael  Angelo,  349 
Mierevelt,  Michael,  80 
Modelling,  Vermeer’s,  12 1 
Monconys,  Balthazar  de,  62 
Monet,  Claude,  painting  by  touches, 
25 

Moore,  Albert,  130 

Morgan,  the  late  J.  Pierpont,  250 

Mostaert,  93 

Murillo,  his  popularity,  27 
Music  Lesson,  The,  277 
Mytens,  Aert,  78 


Naivete  of  vision,  Vermeer’s,  23 
National  Gallery,  the,  270,  273 
Neer, 

Eglon  Van  der,  48,  92 
New  Testament,  The,  304 
Notan,  175 

Obreen,  M.,  71 

Old  Masters,  193 

Old  Woman  with  a Reel,  59,  354 

Orpen,  227 

Ostade,  47 

Oude  Gracht  in  Haarlem,  359 

Pacheco,  73 
Paillet,  A.,  60 
Painters,  Dutch,  46-49 
Painter's  Studio,  A,  341 
Pater,  Walter,  37 
Paxton,  W.  M.,  23 1 
Peace  of  Munster,  38 
Pearl  Necklace,  308 
Perignon,  M.,  60 
Philip  IV.,  s 

Picture  of  a Street,  360,  361 
Pictures, 

by  Vermeer  in  Amsterdam  Sale, 
1696,  238 
Dutch,  39 

Poellenburg,  Cornelis,  47 
Pointille  touch,  Vermeer’s,  103 
Portrait  of  a Woman,  Buda-Pesth, 
339 

Portrait  of  a Young  Girl, 

Arenberg  Collection,  333 
The  Hague,  296 
Portrait  of  a Young  Lady,  358 
Portrait  of  a Young  Man,  337,  359 
Portrait  of  Vermeer,  358 
Potter,  Paul,  37,  48 
Premier  coup,  Vermeer’s  use  of,  126 
Procession  at  Gateway  of  Leyden 
University,  361 
Procuress,  The,  7,  319 
Pseudo  Vermeers,  363 
Public  Place  at  the  Hague,  A,  362 

Raphael,  3 
popularity  of,  27 


387 


INDEX 


Refinement, 
in  art,  18 
Vermeer’s,  17 
Rembrandt,  3,  89,  200 

his  manner  of  composing,  168 
lack  of  refinement,  17 
occasional  manner  of  placing  figure, 
3« 

Rencsse,  C.  A.,  94 
Reynolds,  Sir  Joshua,  66 
Ribera,  152 

Rijks  Museum,  281,  284,  286 
Roi  Soleil,  Le,  41 
Rothenstein,  William,  228 
Rothschild,  late  Baron  A.  de,  332 
Rubens,  3,  208 

treatment  of  half  lights,  148 
Ruskin,  John,  44 

St.  Luke,  Guild  of,  62 
Sarto,  Del,  popularity  of,  27 
Scene  in  a Courtyard , 361 
Schalken,  Godfrey,  48 
Schoonhoven,  Vermeer  of,  65 
Sebastian  Van  Storck,  37 
Sick  Child,  The,  168 
Simon,  James,  317 
Six  Collection,  289 
Slingenlandt,  Jan  Pieter,  48 
Soldier  and  the  Laughing  Girl, 
256 

Sphinx  of  Delft,  65 
Spot,  painting  by  the,  26 
Square  touch,  Vermeer’s,  101 
Stadel’sches  Institute,  Frankfort,  327 
Steen,  Jan,  89 

lack  of  refinement,  17 
Street  in  Delft,  35,  289 
Studio  Interior,  5,  34 1 
Studios,  Dutch,  81 
Study  Head,  316 
Study  of  a Head,  359 
Sunlight,  discussion  on,  156 
Supper  at  Emmaus,  45 
Swaneveld,  Herman,  47 
Sweerts,  Michiel,  78 

Tarbell,  Edmund  C.,  229 
Technique,  Vermeer’s,  99 


Terburg,  194 

affected,  quality  of,  17 
his  composition,  164 
his  picture,  The  Concert,  168 
treatment  of  “edges,”  in 
treatment  of  light,  1 19 
The  Hague,  Royal  Picture  Gallery 
of,  291,  296,  300,  304 
Titian,  207 

Toilet  of  Diana,  The,  208,  300 
Trooper  and  a Girl,  358 
Two  Pictures  of  Streets  with  Figures, 
360 

Utrecht,  Van  der  Meer  of,  56 

Values,  explanation  of,  143 

Van  der  Heist,  37 
Van  der  Hulst,  Pieter,  48 
Van  der  Laan,  Dirck,  94 
Vandermeere,  D.,  66 
Van  der  Werf,  48 
Van  de  Velde,  Adrian,  48 
Van  Gogh,  Vincent,  184 
Van  Huysum,  37 
Van  Veen,  Otto,  47 
Velasquez,  3,  4,  208 
as  a painter,  4 
his  impersonal  vision,  27 
Venetians,  colour  composition  of,  186 
Vermeer  of  Delft,  Jan,  3 
birth,  71 

certain  defects,  6 
characteristic  traits  of,  30 
colour  composition,  180 
coolness  of  tones,  74 
death,  72 

elected  head  man  of  Guild,  62 
election  to  Guild  of  St.  Luke,  71 
his  arrangement  of  light  and  dark, 
177 

his  “blonde”  note,  31 

his  clarity,  113 

his  composition,  162 

his  design,  162 

his  drawing,  134 

his  finish,  222 

his  light  and  shade,  151 


INDEX 


Vermeer  — continued 

his  manner  of  beginning,  126 
his  manner  of  blocking  in,  32 
his  manner  of  placing  figures,  3 1 
his  manner  of  treating  edges,  108 
his  modelling,  120 
his  modernness,  6 
his  painting  of  maps,  155 
his  position  at  easel,  123 
his  preference  for  certain  colours, 
181 

his  relation  to  Da  Vinci,  204 
his  relation  to  De  Hooch,  197 
his  relation  to  Maes,  199 
his  relation  to  Metzu,  196 
his  relation  to  modern  painting, 
215 

his  relation  to  old  masters,  193 
his  relation  to  Rembrandt,  200 
his  relation  to  Terburg,  194 
his  relation  to  Titian,  207 
his  relation  to  Velasquez,  208 
his  surface,  1 15,  199 
his  touch,  103 
his  “values,”  143 
his  underpainting,  222 
impersonal  vision  of,  28,  202 
indifference  to  anecdote,  219 
influence  of  Fabritius  on,  72 
influence  on  modern  Dutch  land- 
scape painting,  217 
intuition  for  colour,  225 
lack  of  affectations,  29 
marriage,  71 

mentioned  in  van  Bleyswyck’s  book 
on  Delft,  61 
method  of  starting,  1 17 
naivete  of  vision,  23 
pointille  touch,  227 
possible  influence  of  French  art  on, 
22 

probable  order  of  his  pictures,  366 
sale  of  pictures,  Amsterdam,  1696, 
237 

selection,  20,  178 
severity  of  line,  13 1 
still-life,  7 
technique,  138 
treatment  of  drapery,  135 


Vermeer  — continued 
truthfulness,  13 
types  of  women,  38 
use  of  blue,  187 
use  of  lemon  yellow,  185 
Vertange,  Daniel,  47 
Victoors,  Jan,  93 
View  of  a Street,  242 
View  of  a Street  in  Delft,  360 
View  of  Delft,  35,  53,  217,  291 
View  of  Some  Houses,  359 
Violent  Storm  at  Sea,  A,  361 
Volmarijn,  80 

Waterloo,  Anton,  48 
Watteau,  18,  38 
Weyermann,  Campo,  64 
Whistler,  J.  McN.,  173 

his  colour  composition,  186 
Widener,  P.  A.  B.,  265 
William  the  Silent,  55 
Windsor  Castle,  277 
IVoman  and  Boy  Sitting  by  the  Fireside 
in  a Room,  352 
IVoman  and  Child,  353 
IVoman  at  Work  with  a Child,  353 
IVoman  Combing  her  Hair,  355 
IVoman  Making  Lace,  A,  352 
IVoman  Paring  Turnips,  354 
IVoman  Washing  Boy’s  Head,  355 
IVoman  Weighing  Gold,  A,  265,  350 
Woman  with  Needlework  in  her  Lap, 

353 

Wouwerman,  Philip,  44 
Wynants,  Johan,  47 

Young  Girl  at  the  Spinet,  275 
Young  Girl  Conversing  with  a Doctor, 
350 

Young  Girl  with  a Flute,  264 
Young  Lady  at  the  Virginals,  270 
Young  Lady  Seated  at  the  Spinet, 
273 

Young  Lady  with  Pearl  Necklace, 

59,  308 

Young  Woman  Opening  a Casement, 
248 

Young  Woman  Skinning  an  Eel, 

354 


389 


